Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.
 

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/728116...ons-story-side

I agree with the author. There are a lot of things in Wilson's version that set off my internal bullshit detector.

continued

I read this hours ago and it is perfectly believable for a chaotic situation caused by entitled thuggery.

When bizarreness enters your world via a social cretin, you get bizarre descriptors.

Lawyered up, to the nth degree.

It is no coincidence that at every possible point where Wilson could insert doubt, doubt was inserted.

Who cares whether or not Ezra thinks the story is "unbelievable" or not? Was Ezra on the Grand Jury where he could listen to all the evidence presented? No? Then who cares?

Apologists.

All the evidence presented is not all of the evidence.

When people are trying to lie their way out of trouble you get some pretty bizarre stories too. I raised three kids. I've heard one or two.

What is "entitled thuggery"?

Dave

"I like these cigars. I deserve to have them. I will take them. Coppers got nothing on me."

Still holding on to anything you can, even phantom evidence, so you can continue to advance your narrative. You're persistent, I'll give you that much. :rolleyes:

Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.
 

I agree.

A jury cleared OJ.

A jury cleared Zimmerman

A jury cleared Wilson.

I suspect strongly that one of those outraged you and the other two you are fine with.

That's one of your better pionts...

How many threads are you going to start with your race charged nonsense. You don't assault a police officer case closed!

Who the heck made you boss of this forum? :confused:
Why don't you just ignore the thread instead of being a "dick" ish troll? Eh, Mike?

Do you actually contribute anything anymore Bob besides little witty sarcastic rhetorical crap and calling people who you don't agree with trolls. Eh Bob, your right, I'm a troll, this place blows, here's my last post. Later.

<shrug> Suit yourself bro. No one is trying to chase you off Mike. It's a free country but when you try to shut someone else up, it sticks in my craw. We all have different takes on the political nonsense of the day, ain't no big thang. Sorry.

For once (that I recall) you responded on point. :)
The entire legal process of Grand Jury handing out indictments is going to be scrutinized, whether you like it or not. Grand Jury is not an investigate body, they evaluate evidence presented to them by the DA, who in this case could have recused himself.

"The feeling all along was that McCulloch’s complete lack of objectivity would prevent him from bringing up charges against a police officer. McCulloch’s father was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty in 1964. Most of McCulloch’s immediate family have served as police officers.

In the past, McCulloch has declined to bring up charges in other police involved shootings that seemed on the outside to show excessive or unlawful use of force."

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/...hts-match.html

So Whell or anyone else, how do you know that all the evidence was presented in this case when McCulloch in the past has been less than forthcoming in getting indictments against LEO's.

Thanks for the PM back Mike. Stick around, would ya?

He definitely did not press Wilson one single time...pretty sure that is what he's supposed to be doing, basically cross examine....

;) Indeed.

No offense intended cause I like and respect you both but would you two alphas kind of back burner the Hatfield and McCoy stuff?

<Ducks and runs for cover> :o :)

Bingo.

I'm not particularly outraged by any of them. I prefer to have a criminal justice system where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that some will get off, and those who can afford a top flight legal team are more likely to get off, but it also makes it slightly more difficult to get railroaded. Our criminal justice system is far from perfect, but I think we are a long way from show trials and star chambers.

Regards,

D-Ray

You do understand the difference between a jury and a grand jury, right? Well, based on your post, I guess not. :rolleyes:

In a literal sense, he is correct though I do not know where he is going with it.

You're just trying to deflect.

The difference is meaningless with regard to the point I am making.

Now I do. :)

Deleted

Having served on a jury I would simply like to point out that both kinds are composed of human beings and apart from the Pope we are not infallible. Humans have been known to screw up on occasion.

I agree very much with this observation. In this regard, I thought the thing departed blatantly from credibility when he described, supposedly in the middle of the fight in the car, a decision-making process in which he goes-through and considers each each non-lethal weapon available to him, elaborating reasons to reject each one, before deciding to draw his gun.

He inserted doubt all right, just not the kind his lawyers intended. Incredible concoctions like this leave one feeling unable to rely on this testimony on any point, without corroboration. So I cannot say the later testimony that Brown 'charged' him is decisive, let alone the report that he threateningly reached under his shirt at his waistband when doing so.

I did note that one of the jurors asked my question: why did Brown stop fleeing and turn around? Wilson had no explanation. One wishes he were a defense witness in a trial, subject to cross-examination by a DA who is seeking to convict.

I was in the car a lot last night and they discussed this in detail on NPR. Apparently there is a great deal of physical evidence as well.

Pete

Let us look at some of the testimony.

Officer Wilson
"Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that 8 to 10 feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that's what I shot.

"I don't know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped.

"When he fell, he fell on his face."

He fired two coup de gras shots, as I have stated on multiple posts, as Brown was in his death throes, staggering toward Brown, who had run over 100 feet to confront him, who had fired twelve rounds, and had hit Brown four times prior to the final two coup de gras.

Wilson sighted his Sig .40 at Brown, from between two and ten feet, depending on testimony, and pumped one round through his eye and jaw, and the last round through the crown of Brown's head, passing through his neck, and into his chest.

The two da for the county asked no questions, and did no cross exam, of any of the bolded points.

These are just the tip of the iceberg on what would have been brought up in a trial.

Or how about this one....
The medical investigator took no photos

The medical investigator did not take photographs at the scene of Brown's killing because the camera battery had died, the grand jury heard.

The investigator, who goes to the crime scene to collect evidence for the pathologist, also did not take measurements of anything at the scene because they "didn't need to."

The investigator, whose name was redacted, said: "It was self-explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there."

Typically, a medical investigator will take crime scene photos in addition to the ones taken by police investigators.

The investigator testified that they did not see evidence of "stippling" (gunpowder) around the wounds on Brown's body.

I know a single medical photographer for the county. For their travel kit bag, they are required to have a second complete battery pack for their scene camera. Oftentimes, they carry a third on their fanny pack. But here it was immaterial to the investigation to measure the furthest point where Wilson's blood trail stopped, relative to where he dropped dead. Kinda hard to have independant documented photo evidence when the photographer "accidently" doesn't have batteries to power the camera.

No, its essential. The grand jury didn't "clear" Wilson of anything. That's not their job. Their job is to evaluate evidence and determine whether or not there's sufficient evidence to indict. Its part of the legal process, but the lack of an indictment does not determine the guilt or innocence of a particular individual.

So either you're doing a lousy job of making your point, or you don't understand the process.

"A prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." - Judge Sol Wachtler.

For some reason, unless it's a cop.

Who gives a crap about McCullouch's motivation? His motivation has no bearing on the Grand Jury's duty to carry out their responsibility, nor does it have any bearing on the quality - or lack thereof - of the evidence that the Grand Jury was required to consider.

Let's also not forget that Eric Holder and company also sifted through the evidence available, and have at least so far stated that there's insufficient evidence to bring a civil rights case against Wilson. This is noteworthy because the burden of proof in a civil case is significantly lower than it would be in a criminal case.

The left always seems to need a boogeyman, and I guess the DA is the latest candidate.

Agreed, Obama's overall stance on this would lead one to believe the available evidence is cut and dry.

Pete

The incredibly incomplete forensics in this case create grave suspicion. A medical examiner who comes back from a shooting scene without photos should be fired.

A person still running toward another at a distance of 8 to 10 feet will collide with him even if his head is blown apart at that point. Despite what you see in movies, little bullets do not impart momentum to big human bodies, not do they cancel the momentum they already have. So here again, the testimony that Brown was shot, at 8 to 10 feet, while running, is unbelievable. How can one know what if anything else to believe from this testimony?

Pete, there can be no federal civil rights violation because Wilson was not discriminatory in his actions. He was acting to apprehend the correct suspect. What he did, however, is another story, and will be litigated in a different court, successfully.

There were 3 autopsies performed (State, Federal and Brown's family). Should all medical examiners be fired?

What I see going on is that a number of people on this board went out on a limb asserting Wilson's guilt and it turns out that the evidence didn't support their (erroneous and politically-motivated) conclusions. Rather than saying "my bad," they continue to try to concoct a case against Wilson without their benefit of having all the testimony and evidence that the grand jury saw. Get over it folks.

Don, I'm amazed at the displayed lack of common sense here. A 6'8" thug that weighs over 250 pounds and is sprinting at you in a drug induced irrational charge will pancake to the ground after toppling forward about 7.5 feet. Or more. A person mortally wounded will be staggering, with an irregular spread pattern, and will drop like a sac of cement. All accounts have Brown toppling forward and faceplanting, with no significant full body momentum.

There will be a blood droplet arc, spray and splatter pattern that will reveal a possible range of where and how fast he was moving. There will be casings on the ground.

But none of that evidence was developed and presented to the grand.

I've read all of Wilson's testimony, and have struggled through three of the witness statements. It is quite interesting to see Wilson's introspective, passive voice, almost hesitant testimony that did not get redirected, vs the other testimony in style. It is also illuminating to read the differing and respectful approach from the das.