WILSON NOT INDICTED
Options
Comments
-
bullets aren't going to miss and hit him in the back if he's facing Wilson. yes, perhaps he was running away for a period of time and Wilson only shot him once he turned around. perhaps Wilson only fired when Brown was facing him. either way, you're having to make a larger logical leap to make the evidence fit your witness's statement when it's not the witness's statement that should be considered more reliable to begin with.kingblaze84 wrote: »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
either way, the case could and SHOULD have been handled much better. which is why that's the point to harp on instead of fussing about discarded witnesses.
more like a circumstance where he was raising his arms, which would jibe with the surrender theory. but witnesses saying bullets were being pumped into his back while he ran away are still notNot 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. -
sort-of-related plot twist:
The saga of Shawn Parcells, the uncredited forensics ‘expert’ in the Michael Brown case
Balko is death on uncredited/fraudulent medical "experts," so it's really about THAT and not the case, but still.Over the holiday weekend, CNN aired a pretty hard-hitting investigation of Shawn Parcells, the man who has become something of a cable news celebrity after assisting in an autopsy on Michael Brown.
Parcells became an overnight media star in August when he assisted in an autopsy commissioned by Brown’s family. He appeared time and again on major media outlets as a forensic pathology expert. He said over the years he’s testified in court dozens of times in several states.
But an investigation by CNN that included interviews with attorneys, law enforcement and physicians suggests Parcells isn’t the expert he seems to be . . .
...
On September 1, the Kansas City Star ran a long article on Parcells and his sudden, national notoriety. (Fox 4 in Kansas City also ran a report in August.) The article describes the prior accusations against him, and characterizes his new-found fame as “vindication.” This passage in particular is striking:
Parcells said his work on the Brown case has him thinking, more than ever, about the future. He said he now is pondering going back to school for a master’s degree or perhaps enrolling in medical school.
“I need to get more credentials,” he said. “I love forensics and helping families. I’m OK with going to the next level.”
Think about that for a moment. This has been one of the most volatile, closely-watched stories of the year, and a story in which much of America is still trying to figure out what happened. It is a story with profound implications on race relations and policing — one where the slightest change in a narrative could have cascading effects throughout the country. An autopsy won’t always tell you what happened, but it can certainly help guide the narrative. An unethical medical examiner can do a lot of damage. And yet here was someone quoted authoritatively in newspapers across the country as a forensic pathologist, who was being proclaimed as a medical expert on cable news show after cable news show . . . now admitting he “need[ed] to get more credentials” — and pondering that perhaps he’ll go to medical school . . . someday. And he continued to appear on cable news after those admissions.
How does this happen? I think Baden’s implicit endorsement certainly contributed. The entire field of forensics is also rife with problems. The courts have also done a poor job keeping bad science out of criminal trials, keeping charlatans off the witness stand, and separating the good, science-based methods of analysis from subjective hokum. This is just another manifestation of that problem.
But the media outlets who continued to give Parcells a platform don’t get off the hook. (And that includes CNN itself.) As the Star article points out, one reason why Parcells became a regular on cable news is that he was one of the few people with inside knowledge who was willing to talk about the case. They were giving Ferguson saturation coverage. He was willing to talk. It was a good fit. Never mind that the guy had no business offering himself up as an expert. Cable news is more about stoking biases and inflaming partisans than about informing viewers.
And bias is part of the problem as well. Highly-charged, emotional stories continue to produce some strikingly unskeptical reporting, particularly stories that include a racial/political component. Several conservative websites, for example, picked up on Parcells’s history back in August. But Parcells was hired by the Brown family, so progressive sites like Wonkette belittled the accusations against Parcells, and accused the conservative sites of pushing their own narrative. Both sides were doing the pushing, of course. And it’s worth noting that Gateway Pundit, the same conservative site that correctly warned about Parcells, was also quick to publish erroneous information that advanced its own preferred Ferguson narrative.
A climate like this doesn’t allow any room to be both skeptical of Parcells’s credibility problems and still troubled by the shooting of Michael Brown. As with the Trayvon Martin story, once the lines have been drawn, nuance is dead. You’re either all-in on all of the talking points, or you’re on the other side.
Once a story has been infected with this level of conflict, neither side is much interested in facts or truth. Pointing out that Shawn Parcells may be a fraud is just signalling that you support Darren Wilson. Mocking those who question Parcells’s credibility lets the world know that you’re with the Brown family. Unfortunately, whether or not the guy who assisted on Brown’s autopsy and has since been proffering his opinions on televisions across America actually is a fraud quickly becomes irrelevant.
-
bullets aren't going to miss and hit him in the back if he's facing Wilson. yes, perhaps he was running away for a period of time and Wilson only shot him once he turned around. perhaps Wilson only fired when Brown was facing him. either way, you're having to make a larger logical leap to make the evidence fit your witness's statement when it's not the witness's statement that should be considered more reliable to begin with.kingblaze84 wrote: »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
either way, the case could and SHOULD have been handled much better. which is why that's the point to harp on instead of fussing about discarded witnesses.
more like a circumstance where he was raising his arms, which would jibe with the surrender theory. but witnesses saying bullets were being pumped into his back while he ran away are still notNot 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.
We can agree the case should have been handled much better, and until people feel their voices are heard, there's going to continue being unrest in Ferguson and parts around the country. People aren't going to just forget about this case, especially when there are people on videotape screaming that Brown wasn't a threat at the time of his death....several witnesses, including two White construction workers, said that Wilson didn't even say get on the ground and that Brown was being shot at AS he was running away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8L3iAOy_5g&feature=player_detailpage -
Tbh I see the lack of investigation as more problematic than the grand jury proceedings.
Essentially his word was taken at face value and any evidence which could have proven his claims false was deliberately foregone. Shows that the police are above the law and able to operate without criticism. They legitimize their own actions.
This is worse than tampering with evidence: this is people with power intentionally refusing to gather any. If it was due to incompetence some people should be getting fired. If it was due to unwillingness we should be throwing them in front of a judge. -
yes. however:kingblaze84 wrote: »We can agree the case should have been handled much better, and until people feel their voices are heard, there's going to continue being unrest in Ferguson and parts around the country.
giving this a big "so what" since you're just repeating yourself without explaining why witnesses whose testimony isn't supported by the evidence should be considered so reliable.kingblaze84 wrote: »...several witnesses, including two White construction workers, said that Wilson didn't even say get on the ground and that Brown was being shot at AS he was running away.
now you're in here telling me to believe people because they're white. good lord
exactly.Tbh I see the lack of investigation as more problematic than the grand jury proceedings.
-
yes. however:kingblaze84 wrote: »We can agree the case should have been handled much better, and until people feel their voices are heard, there's going to continue being unrest in Ferguson and parts around the country.
giving this a big "so what" since you're just repeating yourself without explaining why witnesses whose testimony isn't supported by the evidence should be considered so reliable.kingblaze84 wrote: »...several witnesses, including two White construction workers, said that Wilson didn't even say get on the ground and that Brown was being shot at AS he was running away.
What Evidence?
They basically picked the testimony that coincided with the officer's as the most reliable
which is absurd
it does not follow necessarily -
-
What about the fact that the head shot came downwards? -
-
yes. however:kingblaze84 wrote: »We can agree the case should have been handled much better, and until people feel their voices are heard, there's going to continue being unrest in Ferguson and parts around the country.
giving this a big "so what" since you're just repeating yourself without explaining why witnesses whose testimony isn't supported by the evidence should be considered so reliable.kingblaze84 wrote: »...several witnesses, including two White construction workers, said that Wilson didn't even say get on the ground and that Brown was being shot at AS he was running away.
now you're in here telling me to believe people because they're white. good lord
exactly.Tbh I see the lack of investigation as more problematic than the grand jury proceedings.
You're again disregarding tons of witnesses who saw the scene, which is very shameful of you. 8 witnesses saying Brown was not resisting and that he was not a threat is more then enough for probable cause. Probable cause means a POSSIBILITY that a crime was committed. 8 witnesses isn't enough to bring up a ? charge? Get the ? outta here, you damn right it's enough to bring up charges. Those two construction workers, both of whom were White (I say this because of the history of White people in this nation, known for the vast amounts of deceit and destruction in this land) themselves said Brown was NOT A THREAT. They went to the police to say this, along with 6 other people. I WILL REPEAT THIS because we're talking about probable cause.
If 8 witnesses said I shot a burglar as he was running away from my house, stealing a TV set, I'd be in jail. The cops wouldn't wait for no ? , ? evidence, they would have charged me on the spot. Ignoring witnesses, especially EIGHT of them, is disgraceful and WILL ALWAYS be remembered and brought up in this situation. -
Amazing. America doesn't really have a justice system anymore, it has an INJUSTICE system. I've basically lost all my respect for the injustice system in America, how can America talk about other nations' human rights when America has one of the world's worst justice systems itself? -
guys are taking that a couple of different ways, but it doesn't seem to indicate Brown was running away when he was shotWhat about the fact that the head shot came downwards?
please, cut this ? ? .kingblaze84 wrote: »You're again disregarding tons of witnesses who saw the scene, which is very shameful of you-
one, you're disregarding any witness that doesn't agree with you and then going into this holier-than-thou routine wherein you pretend you're not. it's old and it's lame. what i'm doing is pointing out the known fact that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable and that the best thing to do is to ask if it's supported by the evidence. "disregarding" would imply i don't care what a witness says because it doesn't conform to some presumptive conclusion of mine. which, by the way, is what you're doing right now.
8 witnesses NOT SUPPORTED BY FORENSIC EVIDENCE.kingblaze84 wrote: »8 witnesses isn't enough to bring up a ? charge? Get the ? outta here, you damn right it's enough to bring up charges.
you have a fairly even split of witnesses and evidence that would seem more in line with their statements. that's why people have been saying this could go either way.
then stop ? pretending that you're not ignoring every witness you don't agree with!kingblaze84 wrote: »If 8 witnesses said I shot a burglar as he was running away from my house, stealing a TV set, I'd be in jail. The cops wouldn't wait for no ? , ? evidence, they would have charged me on the spot. Ignoring witnesses, especially EIGHT of them, is disgraceful and WILL ALWAYS be remembered and brought up in this situation.
seriously, this is not about "disregarding witnesses," this is about you disagreeing with the result. and that's fine. but it's ridiculous to keep pretending The Real Issue here is that one side or another is ? DISREGARDING A WITNESS SOMEWHERE -
guys are taking that a couple of different ways, but it doesn't seem to indicate Brown was running away when he was shotWhat about the fact that the head shot came downwards?
please, cut this ? ? .kingblaze84 wrote: »You're again disregarding tons of witnesses who saw the scene, which is very shameful of you-
one, you're disregarding any witness that doesn't agree with you and then going into this holier-than-thou routine wherein you pretend you're not. it's old and it's lame. what i'm doing is pointing out the known fact that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable and that the best thing to do is to ask if it's supported by the evidence. "disregarding" would imply i don't care what a witness says because it doesn't conform to some presumptive conclusion of mine. which, by the way, is what you're doing right now.
8 witnesses NOT SUPPORTED BY FORENSIC EVIDENCE.kingblaze84 wrote: »8 witnesses isn't enough to bring up a ? charge? Get the ? outta here, you damn right it's enough to bring up charges.
you have a fairly even split of witnesses and evidence that would seem more in line with their statements. that's why people have been saying this could go either way.
then stop ? pretending that you're not ignoring every witness you don't agree with!kingblaze84 wrote: »If 8 witnesses said I shot a burglar as he was running away from my house, stealing a TV set, I'd be in jail. The cops wouldn't wait for no ? , ? evidence, they would have charged me on the spot. Ignoring witnesses, especially EIGHT of them, is disgraceful and WILL ALWAYS be remembered and brought up in this situation.
seriously, this is not about "disregarding witnesses," this is about you disagreeing with the result. and that's fine. but it's ridiculous to keep pretending The Real Issue here is that one side or another is ? DISREGARDING A WITNESS SOMEWHERE
A shot coming from downwards coincides with the testimony alleging he was shot while down
Yet little regard is being given to this, despite this same reasoning being used to support Wilson's claims -
i think in the case of the "downwards shot," you can at least explain it different ways; are we saying the rest of the evidence cosigns the "shot while lying down" theory?A shot coming from downwards coincides with the testimony alleging he was shot while down
Yet little regard is being given to this, despite this same reasoning being used to support Wilson's claims
