Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

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.

Jesus Christ. Some of you are so out of your fucking element.

An officer does the above while chewing gum, every moment of every day.

A fighter pilot doesn't eject because his training, experience and situational awareness (doesn't even have to look at the instruments) tell him he's "too low, too fast, over a populated area and etc.," and nobody questions a thing that he makes the best choice for public safety.

An officer defends his (and others) life against a fucking entitled robber, is exonerated by a Grand Jury that determines there is no reason to bring charges, and some people want to whine by inferring he didn't do what is constantly, consistently and credibly done by everyone in the field.

That's just rampant stupidity. At this point, there's no other name for it. It's like saying a pilot doesn't monitor his airspeed, altitude and position...

OF COURSE HE DOES, HE'S A FUCKING PILOT!

Jesus...

[icenine]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...26-story.html#


Quote:The tactic was a shrewd maneuver, legal experts say, in which McCulloch both deflected responsibility for his own failure to charge Wilson and — deliberately or not — created conditions in which the grand jury would not be likely to charge him either.

"This was a strategic and problematic use of a grand jury to get the result he wanted," said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University. "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result."

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by icenine

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...26-story.html#


Quote:The tactic was a shrewd maneuver, legal experts say, in which McCulloch both deflected responsibility for his own failure to charge Wilson and — deliberately or not — created conditions in which the grand jury would not be likely to charge him either.

"This was a strategic and problematic use of a grand jury to get the result he wanted," said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University. "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result."

Ah, yes.

The implied "I didn't kill your savior, I wash my hands of this" critique...

[sheltiedave]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Ah, yes.

The implied "I didn't kill your savior, I wash my hands of this" critique...

Zeke, did we miss something?
Did McCulloch press for either an indictment, or for a no bill?
Or did his office throw everything at the grand jury?
And the Harvard professor is spot on, tho it means nothing to law enforcement types.

McCulloch didn't need to wash his hands here, he never stuck them in the dirt to begin with. Leaving the grand jury rudderless, to their own devices. And, ultimately, to a no bill decision.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Ah, yes.

The implied "I didn't kill your savior, I wash my hands of this" critique...

One should always question authority Zeke. You seem so closed minded that it is scary at times. It seems you live in a black and white world with no cowboys with gray hats on.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by icenine

One should always question authority Zeke.

By trying to rationalize thuggish behavior?

My world isn't closed, I'm just WAY ahead in this thought curve.

"Authority," is NOT the problem, here.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Jesus Christ. Some of you are so out of your fucking element.

An officer does the above while chewing gum, every moment of every day.

A fighter pilot doesn't eject because his training, experience and situational awareness (doesn't even have to look at the instruments) tell him he's "too low, too fast, over a populated area and etc.," and nobody questions a thing that he makes the best choice for public safety.

An officer defends his (and others) life against a fucking entitled robber, is exonerated by a Grand Jury that determines there is no reason to bring charges, and some people want to whine by inferring he didn't do what is constantly, consistently and credibly done by everyone in the field.

That's just rampant stupidity. At this point, there's no other name for it. It's like saying a pilot doesn't monitor his airspeed, altitude and position...

OF COURSE HE DOES, HE'S A FUCKING PILOT!

Jesus...

Calm down. I'm not saying he didn't make a justifiable decision to shoot, if he was being punched through the window of his car. If he was being punched through the window of his car, it's a very obvious and proper decision, and one doesn't have to have the training of an airline pilot to see it.

I've never criticized the shoot from inside the car. I have big questions about the subsequent pursuit and the final killing, but that is biside the point I was making--the point you miss, or choose to miss.

My poiint is that I find the testimony as given incredible. I believe his decision-making process as presented, is a lawyerish fantasy. I don't think he thought to himself 'Can I use the pepper spray? No, because [blah blah blah.] Well then, can I use the collapsible baton? No, because ...' and so on and so on. He wouldn't do that. He didn't do that. It would take a ridiculous amount to time to do that. It's absurd to think he would do that.

But he said all that in his sworn testiomny. My point is not that he should not have used his gun at the point of the fight in the car. It's the blatantly obvious and justified thing to do.

My point is he swore to absurd stuff here, in his representation of a verbalized, careful, elaborate, process-of-elimination decision-making process. And the absurdity calls into question all of his testimony.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

My point is he swore to absurd stuff here, in his representation of a verbalized, careful, elaborate, process-of-elimination decision-making process.

And my point is that is in no manner absurd.

[whell]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

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.

Dave - that's not the case at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...cd5_story.html

The Civil Rights Division is conducting a separate investigation of the Aug. 9 shooting of Brown, who was unarmed, to determine whether there is a civil rights case to be brought against Officer Darren Wilson, whose fatal shooting of Brown sparked months of protests.

And...

The department’s investigation of Wilson appears to be less likely to lead to federal charges. Investigators have said that the evidence at this point is not strong enough to bring criminal civil rights charges against Wilson.

As in similar cases, federal law sets a high bar for bringing civil rights charges against a police officer. Federal prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to violate a victim’s constitutional rights.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Rex E.

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

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1



Quote:


But other witnesses were adamant, even during cross-examination by prosecutors, that Brown never charged the officer.

An elderly man who lives in the Canfield Green complex and witnessed the shooting from his porch contended during lengthy questioning by investigators and prosecutors that Brown was not shot in the back or charging the officer but was instead “steadily moving” toward him, “staggering,” wounded and “wobbly” before the final fatal shot to his head.

“He was not charging him, he was defenseless, hands up, he was trying to stay on his feet and you could see that his knees was beginning to buckle, he was going down,” the man told the grand jury. He said he saw Brown’s torso bent 45 degrees as he was “fighting to stay up.”

“He wasn’t going toward the officer to try to get him. He was trying to stand up. He was trying to maintain himself, but you could see his body was giving out,” the man said, adding that when he saw the final shots fired, Brown “was already on his way down.”

::



McCulloch obviously did not want to utilize this witness in an attempt to establish probable cause.