Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[sheltiedave]

Of course I don't. And I know you don't as well.

That is why a lot of us are asking questions why the asst. DAs did what they did. They presented all of it without prejudicial statements prior, but plenty of prejudice within the statements. That keyed the grand jury that they were hearing bullshit, when they would not get away with that in a trial.

If you accept ambiguity on whether Wilson was charging, why can't you accept near unanimous testimony that he attempted some form of surrender?

The blood spread pattern at the point where he stopped , there is a second spread a few feet forward of that, and the the huge one where he passed. It would have been interesting to hear the forensic evidence in court, and see closeups of the droplets, which would allow us the opportunity to discern as well. Alas.....

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

Of course I don't. And I know you don't as well.

That is why a lot of us are asking questions why the asst. DAs did what they did. They presented all of it without prejudicial statements prior, but plenty of prejudice within the statements. That keyed the grand jury that they were hearing bullshit, when they would not get away with that in a trial.

If you accept ambiguity on whether Wilson was charging, why can't you accept near unanimous testimony that he attempted some form of surrender?

The blood spread pattern at the point where he stopped , there is a second spread a few feet forward of that, and the the huge one where he passed. It would have been interesting to hear the forensic evidence in court, and see closeups of the droplets, which would allow us the opportunity to discern as well. Alas.....

So, you're saying that by your casual perusal of the material released, along with your admitted bias in favor of Brown, that your analysis is better than the grand jury who met for 60 days? I don't and I never will. Give it a rest. You're sounding desperate.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You twist the point.

No.

I make the point but you're not intellectually brave enough to see it because it absolutely will destroy pollyanna thoughts like those you profess. Here's a thought: Google "entitlement causes crime." Then, Google "entitlement does NOT cause crime."

I'm being serious.

There are, quite literally, pages of research done on the topic. Do you know what the major difference between the two searches is? Google tends to omit the word "not" because there aren't enough relevant search results containing that word. Meaning? I could deluge with citations any time I wanted to but what's the point? You refuse to live in the Real World.

Many folks who feel entitled to another's stuff will try to take it. Sometimes, they get themselves shot. Those who do not feel entitled to another person's stuff shouldn't feel remorse about harm coming to those who would try to take.

The bigger question is why some people believe they are entitled to a bauble, treatment, manner of living, etc. and do NOT try to shortcut obtain it. Personally, I believe it's because they've had a single person in their life -- just one -- who said, "that's not yours, you can't have it, you have to work for it."

In many urban societies, that person doesn't exist or is dead via violent crime because nobody told THEM the above.

There's your problem.

Had Michael Brown been parented at five he may not have been appropriately shot at fifteen.

EDIT: wait, something clicked. We're not using the word the same way. I mean personal entitlement, not entitlements as a noun.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Tell me; Before this Ferguson mess, when was the last time you heard the phrases "entitlement violence", "entitlement theft", "entitlement looting"......

It's been in the scholastic material (sociology, criminal justice, government/public affairs) since the acknowledged failure of the Great Society: at least the mid 1980s...

EDIT: wait, something clicked. We're not using the word the same way. I mean personal entitlement, not entitlements as a noun.

[sheltiedave]

No, Finn, I am asking the same questions that the lawyers and police that have visited over the past couple months are asking.

If you have a police witness who stated he knew there were fingerprints on the gun, you analyze the gun. If you find one of the twelve rounds went off at an odd tangent to the firing arc and ended up in an apartment wall to the south, you find out if it can be explained, or if it contradicts said testimony.

If you have blood splatter patterns, you don't just stop and say they are within a reasonable expected area. You analyze the droplet leading edge to determine if they indicate motion, and rate of speed. A droplet will spread far differently for an injured person racing at an officer at greater than 15 mph, vs an injured person staggering forward at 1 mph, stumbling to stay upright.

If all these details line up at the first go around when developing the evidence portfolio, and then line up a second time at trial in an adversarial process, you are gold. Wilson can be cleared with very little prejudice. If the SPECIFICS don't line up with the first go around, then there is a case. With our county DA, we never made it to a very detailed analysis.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In clinical psychology and psychiatry, an unrealistic, exaggerated, or rigidly held sense of entitlement may be considered a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder, seen in those who "[ Freud said ] because of early frustrations, they arrogate to themselves the right to demand lifelong reimbursement from fate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement#Narcissism

What about this, Mr. DSM V?

THIS post made something click for me.

We're (some board folks and I) not using the word the same way. I mean personal entitlement, not entitlements as a noun. Sum? I'm talking about the above, not social programs.

Personal entitlement...

[sheltiedave]

Originally Posted by Zeke

It's been in the scholastic material (sociology, criminal justice, government/public affairs) since the acknowledged failure of the Great Society: at least the mid 1980s...

But Zeke, I have been asking you to cite a major book written and based on this entitlement theory, and you have not been capable of doing such.

All of these wonderful theories that enter the lexicon have a main proponent, just like economic theories and pricipals. You should know that, just like game theory, and Just In Time supply, and the Six Degree Black Belt qual, and all these folks who pick up Nobel Prizes for their theoretical work.

Who is the leading entitlement theorist?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

If you have blood splatter patterns, you don't just stop and say they are within a reasonable expected area. You analyze the droplet leading edge to determine if they indicate motion, and rate of speed. A droplet will spread far differently for an injured person racing at an officer at greater than 15 mph, vs an injured person staggering forward at 1 mph, stumbling to stay upright.

You've been watching Dexter haven't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J40w...6yBJNVBROg_Jyg

[finnbow]

For the last time, a DA doesn't recommend going to a trial on an ambiguous case, or worse yet, a case that lacks credible witnesses whose testimony comports with the physical evidence. Also, like it or not, police officers get the benefit of the doubt in recognition of the dangers involved of policing in rough, lawless communities and the split-second decision-making often involved. Get over it. The grand jury ship has sailed.

If you want to get behind an effort to recall or disbar McCullough, go for it. All this bitching about the facts not comporting with your desired version of events will get you nowhere.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

But Finn, if you give all the witnesses credibility, then the majority/perponderance of them said Brown surrendered.

Maybe the black witnesses were only counted as 3/5 of a witness.