Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[finnbow]

Here's the most complete account of the Ferguson case I've read. Given the physical evidence and testimony, it is abundantly clear that the grand jury did its job properly. Read the entire article before commenting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/invest...ff8_story.html

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here's the most complete account of the Ferguson case I've read. Given the physical evidence and testimony, it is abundantly clear that the grand jury did its job properly. Read the entire article before commenting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/invest...ff8_story.html

1. Read in full.
2. The Grand Jury did its job.

[donquixote99]

You all claim the article makes everything totally clear. The authors do not claim that:

And what happened in the three confrontations between Brown and Wilson in those three minutes — an exchange of words about Brown and his friend jaywalking, a scuffle inside Wilson’s patrol vehicle and the final encounter in the middle of Canfield Drive — will never be entirely clear.

I read the entire story, and I can see why y'all find it cheering. I imagine this passage is a favorite:

Which direction Brown was moving in could be important legally. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer may not shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect unless the person presents a serious threat to the officer or the public.

But the tussle over the gun probably renders that issue moot, said Rodney J. Uphoff, a law professor at the University of Missouri and a former criminal defense lawyer: “If he tussled over the gun, then [Wilson] has a reasonable belief that [Brown] will take the gun, and [Wilson] has the right to use deadly force.”

Even civilians have the right to use deadly force at this point, said Zahnd, the Missouri prosecutor: “If we believe Brown punches Wilson and attempts to grab his weapon, under Missouri law, I believe he has the right of any citizen to use deadly force.”

Brown’s only legal option at that point is to surrender.

The reporting here is, in my opinion, confusing and misleading. I think the reporting committee likely argued some over this part. Note that the language is qualified: "could be important legally...probably renders that issue moot" [emphasis added]. I note that the remark quoted from Professor Liphoff only mentions the allegation of a 'tussle over the gun,' and does not mention the issues of subsequent flight and pursuit. We have only the reporting to place it in that context, and suggest that Lupoff's remark pertains to that portion of the encounter.

Prosecutor Zahnd, likewise, completely ignores, in her remarks, the problem noted clearly at the beginning of the quoted portion above, the matter of using deadly force on an unarmed, fleeing suspect. Instead, as is typical for Wilson apologists, she elides the distinction between the fight at the car, and the subsequent flight and pursuit.

The last sentence is a strong, blunt assertion supporting Wilson, but is not on point: the question is not what were Brown's legal options, but what were Wilson's. The presence of this assertion here signals, to me, a tilt toward Wilson in the reporting committee's work.

As ever, the questions in my mind about the many unaccounted-for shots from Wilson's gun, and Brown's decision to stop running and turn back toward Wilson, leave me with suspicion that Wilson fired at Brown while he was fleeing. Wilson has testified that he simply followed Brown, to 'keep him in sight,' but it's not clear to me why such a non-threatening pursuit would prompt Brown to stop and turn around, either to 'charge,' or to surrender.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Big pharma lies like dogs. When they are confronted with how RX is managed in the EU and that sick people are not forced to decide between food and meds in the EU, you know what we get from big pharma. We get..."Our R&D costs for bringing new drugs to market will be overwhelming if our profit margins are controlled. Sick people who need these new products will die...blah...blah."

Which is utter bullshit since big pharma spends more money on advertising than they spend, or ever have spent, on R&D.

And...big pharma also knows that their advertising causes idiotic Americans to run to their idiotic primary care docs (GP's and in the case of idiotic American women, idiotic OB/GYN primary care docs) who won't say 'no' to their patient demands for the wonder drug they see on the TeeVee. Most of the board certified psychiatrists I know will not allow their patients to dictate what psychotropics they will be prescribing.

When Florence was still taking the Novartis BP meds it was over $600 for a 90 day supply. In Canada that same med was just over $220 for the 90 day supply. It is not only Big Pharma but also the simple fact that there are at most four drug wholesalers here and if they are not price fixing then I am the King of Roumania (apologies to Dorothy Parker.). Again the effing middleman.

The generic is equally effective and even much cheaper.

As for mental health care the simple fact that some years back, about the time of 'On flew over the cuckoo's nest and Nurse Ratchett' they closed all the state hospitals. So now you can at public expense diagnose and prescribe drugs for mentally ill people but you can't legally make them take those drugs. So thanks to piss poor reporting these folks are not on the banned list and can buy weapons, or their mother can buy weapons and leave them lying about.

[Zeke]

If you assault an officer you're clearly dangerous. Regardless of circumstance, although Wilson was golden, "good shoot."

I said this months ago.

Accurately.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

If you assault an officer you're clearly dangerous. Regardless of circumstance, although Wilson was golden, "good shoot."

I said this months ago.

Accurately.

Should we read this as 'If you assault a police officer, you can be gunned down, regardless of circumstances?

If your goal is to puff yourself up as mighty and righteous in your sayings, you should be just a little more careful in what you say. Opposite effect otherwise possible.

[Zeke]

If you assault an officer, you CAN be shot regardless of circumstances.

100% factual.

As to whether or not you're indicted?

THAT depends upon circumstance.

Best to just not assault officers.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Zeke

If you assault an officer, you CAN be shot regardless of circumstances.

Or get choked for resisting arrest.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

If you assault an officer, you CAN be shot regardless of circumstances.

100% factual.

As to whether or not you're indicted?

THAT depends upon circumstance.

Best to just not assault officers.

Now you're playing word games, using 'can' in the sense of 'it can happen.' In context, you have to have understood the meaning was 'it is legal.'

As to whether or not you're indicted, that's hardly a possibility, is it?

The way you tell it, we might as well issue the cops samurai swords, so they can lop the heads off of any of the peasants who don't bow when they pass by. (A pleasant thought, eh?)

[Zeke]

Resist a lawful arrest? Get taken down (accidents happen).

Put an officer in fear of his life? Potential for immediate deadly force.

Either way? Not the officer's fault.

Confirmed. Twice.