Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

These T-shirts are not exactly saying "we serve and protect".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3479017.html

Looks like typical cop culture to me.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Zeke is just offering an alternate narrative to that force-fed by the Democrats and their compliant media (e.g., MSNBC). There are two sides to every story, and the way it looks his side is probably closer to what actually happened. That really pisses off those of you who went so far out on a limb with charges of a public execution.

And it's going to annoy them more after Grand Jury exoneration and a potential-but-unlikely civil rights trail fiasco leading to some quick minor insurance bucks versus a second acquittal or inability to collect. (There's been no Zimmerman civil rights trail and he killed someone without training, authority, evidenced attack or presumed remorse...)

If you attack an officer in his cruiser and/or wheel back on him afterwards? While still within a zone of potential lethality? You get shot until you're no longer a threat. That's been long standing codified as legally fine within the purview of those trained and sworn to police society, upheld MANY times.

As for the Huffington Post link below, who read to the bottom?

"...As with most police abuse issues, the real failure here is on the part of the elected officials. They're the ones who can't resist the urge to incessantly declare "war" on things, who are responsible for setting the policies that have given rise to this culture..."

As I previously stated.

If foolish troglodytes desire to take issue with what occurred in Ferguson, take issue with something other than an officer who was well within his personal and professional right to defend his life from a -- as it turns out -- large entitled and drugged individual who had just committed robbery...

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Zeke

And it's going to annoy them more after Grand Jury exoneration and a potential-but-unlikely civil rights trail fiasco...

It seems that Holder's DOJ seems to believe that they don't have a case against the officer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...031_story.html

[donquixote99]

Grand Jury's don't actually exonerate. Grand jury proceedings are not trials.

You just try to annoy people, Zeke.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Grand Jury's don't actually exonerate. Grand jury proceedings are not trials.

You just try to annoy people, Zeke.

Grand juries have a lower threshold of proof than trials (preponderance of evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt). A lack of indictment is an indicator that a guilty verdict would be somewhere between unlikely and impossible (i.e., they don't even have a preponderance of evidence). Accordingly, one does not need to be exonerated if they're never charged.

[sheltiedave]

As for the Huffington Post link below, who read to the bottom?

"...As with most police abuse issues, the real failure here is on the part of the elected officials. They're the ones who can't resist the urge to incessantly declare "war" on things, who are responsible for setting the policies that have given rise to this culture..."

Please note this was an excuse often used by soldiers who vastly exceeded any bounds of human decency in past wars. When there existed a vacuum of leadership, people felt free to act without discipline or limit. If any bounds of decency were exceeded, it would always be someone else's fault.

The "good soldier" defense did not work at the Nuremburg trials, it did not work at Calley's trial, it has not worked for the Blackwater fiasco, it strangely only worked for officers at Abu Grahib, and it is cracking with police forces as citizen communities learn what unfettered police response means.

And it's going to annoy them more after Grand Jury exoneration and a potential-but-unlikely civil rights trail fiasco leading to some quick minor insurance bucks versus a second acquittal or inability to collect.

As for this part, the dismissal of the Ferguson police chief and the ultimate dissolving of the Ferguson Police Department/absorption into St. Louis County PD will speak far louder than a rubber stamp recommendation sought by PA McCulloch. If the "exoneration" is all important to you, why is the elimination of the Police Department in the works?

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Paragraph 1 - why would the PD come forward with anything? If they had or did would that make Wilson any more or less vulnerable to an indictment? I think not. All it would do is make the Ferguson PD more open to scorn from one pack of ideologues or another.

Paragraph 2 - Society is corrupt? Humanity is barbarous. Law enforcement is just a segment of a barbarous world.

Paragraph 3 - Agreed. Get rid of handguns.

If they never put out an official explanation, or make an incident report, it makes it seem that perhaps the witnesses were correct after all. I mean if your child was killed by the police, whether rightly or wrongly, you would expect an official explanation wouldn't you?

If there is never an official report I would assume Wilson got so mad after Brown tried to take his gun away that he ran up and shot the guy in the head after hitting him already. Or was so scared he ran up and shot him in the head after Brown tried to take his gun.

If there are indeed real people (not police sources i.e. Wilson) who say they saw Brown charging then release that evidence. If it is from the grand jury redact the names to protect the witnesses. That maybe would stop any more protests.

But that is the rub isn't it?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

As for this part, the dismissal of the Ferguson police chief and the ultimate dissolving of the Ferguson Police Department/absorption into St. Louis County PD will speak far louder than a rubber stamp recommendation sought by PA McCulloch. If the "exoneration" is all important to you, why is the elimination of the Police Department in the works?

Politics?

[icenine]

Plus on the question of whether Brown's partner in the strong arm robbery is a credible witness remember the police and the DA use informants and convicted criminals as witnesses in criminal prosecutions all the time. Of course against one of their own there might be reluctance.


The police, like the members of the military, work and live in a closed society, which I remember from Sociology 101. Having lived in a closed society for 20 years, i.e. the Navy, I know how they operate. In short everyone not in your organization is an outsider or a "civilian", and there is a closed looped on information. If you remember the discussion about how the military may not be policing itself in respect to sexual assaults then you may have an idea what I am talking about.

Whether he is innocent or not it is obvious that the Ferguson PD is taking full advantage of their veil to protect one of their own, which is not always a bad thing but when it shakes public confidence it can destroy the image and integrity of the system.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by icenine

Plus on the question of whether Brown's partner in the strong arm robbery is a credible witness remember the police and the DA use informants and convicted criminals as witnesses in criminal prosecutions all the time. Of course against one of their own there might be reluctance.

The fact that police often use informants doesn't render Brown's partner credible. It's up to a jury to determine credibility.