Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

That's terribly loose. It's pretty close to 'at will.' It doesn't even say 'reasonably believes.' It just says 'believes.'

I wonder what the statutory language is. I don't hold with this as law, as you have presented it. If that's the law, it needs to be revised.

And I do think Wilson was shooting at Brown as Brown fled. Otherwise, what makes him stop running and turn around, as all the witnesses have said he did?

You miss the point: even IF Wilson shot at Brown as he fled, it's 100% codified as a GOOD SHOOT.

[icenine]

You have to hand it to the St. Louis prosecutor's leak friendly Grand Jury. Now there are black witnesses who back Wilson's story...but are too afraid to come out and say so because of fear.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by icenine

You have to hand it to the St. Louis prosecutor's leak friendly Grand Jury. Now there are black witnesses who back Wilson's story...but are too afraid to come out and say so because of fear.

I would also say that all Grand Juries are user friendly to the prosecutor and prosecution. And prosecutors are pro LE. So this is a closed loop system.

[icenine]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6032494.html

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Zeke

...
If you have to fire, you fire until the threat is neutralized.

.....

Originally Posted by Zeke

Precisely. Which is why you keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.

.....

It can be no other way, unless one sees police as expendable.

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Zeke, if the shooting by Wilson was "GOLD" as you have justified it, why were there riots in Ferguson?

Just imagine the responses in my head I heard on NPR yesterday that suddenly home sales are spiking there - the people who actually live there don't want to deal with the rioters - go figure.

Pete

[icenine]

A killing might be necessary for self-defense of course. I would hestiate to apply the term moral to any sort of killing though.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

A killing might be necessary for self-defense of course. I would hestiate to apply the term moral to any sort of killing though.

A killing can be very moral. Shooting a person holding a knife to a 3-year-old girl might be a hypothetical example.

But I'm saying justification requires something like that to actually be the case. I'm against officers having the right to shoot you because they imagine you might do something bad in the future.

[icenine]

Actually Melnick has come out and said her conclusions are just evidence of various possibilities....she herself has said the media are misinterpreting her findings. You have to remember that the forensic evidence as it applies to the shots fired outside of the car will come into play. It is possible Wilson hit Brown in the armpit area from the back, and then Brown turned around and then put his hands in the air.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by icenine

Actually Melnick has come out and said her conclusions are just evidence of various possibilities....she herself has said the media are misinterpreting her findings. You have to remember that the forensic evidence as it applies to the shots fired outside of the car will come into play. It is possible Wilson hit Brown in the armpit area from the back, and then Brown turned around and then put his hands in the air.

Of course. It's what forensic pathologists do. They report things like, "The path of the bullet suggests that it's highly unlikely that Michael Brown was shot with his hands up." What does that mean? It means, it's highly unlikely that Michael Brown was shot with his hands up. That's what it means. The report still means that all rounds entered Michael Brown's body from the front...that's what that means. Does it mean anything else? It means somebody with an agenda will try to make their case from it.

So...some in the media with their own special social agenda...on either side of the issue...will use parts of legitimate reports like the one Melnick has prepaired to make their own case on the TV and in print. And it's both sides of the media, Ice...now isn't it? Fox vs. MSNBC.

And it's both sides of the argument on this forum...the Michael Brown was murdered by a racist cop types vs. the Darren Wilson is being exploited by social activists for their own publicity types.

And it will be both sides of the legal teams if the thing ever actually goes to trial. What it means is that in the end, if it goes to trial, Darren Wilson's future will be decided by 12 people who develop a fucking opinion developed by the lawyer who makes the most skillful argument. So much for justice in the American legal system.

And so it goes.

[icenine]

I tend to believe the witnesses that have come forward. I am not so cynical to believe that if there are indeed 7 or 8 African Americans who support Wilson's version of events that they all would be afraid to put there name behind their accounts by this time. One or two would have come forward by now. The leaks by the "secret" grand jury are very self-serving to Wilson.