DM07 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Thank God, you are so mature and intellectual superior.Sure you noticed, that in one of my earlier posts, I mention the confrontation between Willson and Brown as the one point, that I can not make heads or tail of. There has been a confrontation and Brown may as well have been the driving force. Having said that, I highly doubt, that the thing went from Willlson politely asking "Good Sir, you are aware that you are walking in the middle of the road and you may be in harms way. May I kindly ask you to step on the sidewalk for your own safety" to a struggle in 3 seconds, but I don't know that. He sure was stopped for jaywalking. And if Willson was so freaking scared by "Hulk Hogan"...why did he chase the guy, after he turned and walked away? Oh...I know: he had the right...no ...the obligation to do so! And because he had a gun, which makes him more powerful than the Hulkster! By the way: what is that waistband - story about? Willson was scared about Brown, having a weapon on him? A weapon, he didn't use before but instead tried to get hold of Willsons gun? Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says! Wanna know why? Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes! I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD! Shot several times, while surrendering! I'm certainly not going to argue with you about your first sentence. The rest of your post is basically things that have already been discussed and cleared up. Officer Wilson didn't violate any laws and didn't shoot Brown while he was surrendering. You can write nonsenscial posts from now to domesday, it isn't going to alter the facts of this incident. "have already been discussed and cleared up"...by who? The prosecution, that was flawed? Office Willson? There are different opinions on if Willson violated laws and if Brown was or was not being shot while surrendering. Just because 12 people say something, that doesn't make it true! "The facts of this incident" are controversial, to say the least and you writing nonsensical post from...whatever...will also not change that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM07 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The neighborhood is armed and dangerous. The neighborhood has no respect for law and order and/or police. If you meet ten people there 8 will have a criminal background. There are many poor neighborhoods in the world East St. Louis is not only poor it is criminal and dangerous for police and fire department. The police are frightened and keep a finger on the trigger and rightly so. Violent crime rate USA 214 Violent crime rate East St. Louis 3000 - 4000 http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-East-St.-Louis-Illinois.html A murder rate 17 times the U.S. average, the nation’s highest according to the FBI. There’s the shopping mall where a police officer was shot in the face, a youth center that saw a triple homicide in September, and scattered about the city of 27,000 are brightly lit gas stations that serve as magnets for carjackers, hit-and- run robbers and killers. The city’s killings, which hit 25 in 2011, the most recent year for which FBI statistics are available, or 9.23 per 10,000 people compared with the national rate of 0.55.East St. Louis Cops Outgunned as Cuts Let Killers Thrive http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/east-st-louis-cops-outgunned-as-cuts-let-killers-thrive.htmlIt is not a quaint little hamlet with disadvantaged farmers milking goats trying to cope with the occasional stealing of a pound of feta cheese. Still: what is your point? There are bad neighbourhoods! We all know that... So? I don't get it! According to OFFICER WILLSON, he was stopping the guy for walking in the middle of the street, asking him politely (OF COURSE!) to get on the sidewalk! If the police are so damn scared about that neighborhood, that they constantly have their finger on the trigger, sure it is a really brilliant idea, to get into an argument about jaywalking! "oh god...I am so scared, going into Fergusson, I am gonna stop the first huge black guy and get into an argument with him about nothing!" Sound totally legit to me! So again: what is your point? There is so much crime in East St. Louis that a state of war exists between the citizens and the police force. Now do you understand? In the UK you can punch a cop and not get killed because the police don't have guns. In the USA if you punch a cop you might get killed. That's the way it is. That is always the way it has been. Smart criminals don't punch cops. Get it? Or are you saying that the criminal did not punch the cop? No I don't understand! What you are doing, is basically saying "rape victims are asking for it"! So the neighborhood is problematic, so everybody basically lives with the risk of being shot, armed, unarmed... I stated before, the one thing about the encounter, that I am not sure about, is the confrontation between (the 5 year old) Willson and Michael (Hulk) Brown! I am not buying 99% of what Willson says! And I don't know, if "the criminal" punched "the cop". But: if Willson just would have let go of Brown, walking the way he was walking...in a WAR ZONE, as you say...none of that would have happened. There is a "war" raging! And jaywalking is a problem? Yeah right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 "have already been discussed and cleared up"...by who? The Grand Jury. Officer Wilson was not charged and he will never be criminally charged by anyone. The preponderance of evidence was judged to be in his favor. That is as "cleared" up as the case is ever going to get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thailiketoo Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) Still: what is your point? There are bad neighbourhoods! We all know that... So? I don't get it! According to OFFICER WILLSON, he was stopping the guy for walking in the middle of the street, asking him politely (OF COURSE!) to get on the sidewalk! If the police are so damn scared about that neighborhood, that they constantly have their finger on the trigger, sure it is a really brilliant idea, to get into an argument about jaywalking! "oh god...I am so scared, going into Fergusson, I am gonna stop the first huge black guy and get into an argument with him about nothing!" Sound totally legit to me! So again: what is your point? There is so much crime in East St. Louis that a state of war exists between the citizens and the police force. Now do you understand? In the UK you can punch a cop and not get killed because the police don't have guns. In the USA if you punch a cop you might get killed. That's the way it is. That is always the way it has been. Smart criminals don't punch cops. Get it? Or are you saying that the criminal did not punch the cop? No I don't understand! What you are doing, is basically saying "rape victims are asking for it"! So the neighborhood is problematic, so everybody basically lives with the risk of being shot, armed, unarmed... I stated before, the one thing about the encounter, that I am not sure about, is the confrontation between (the 5 year old) Willson and Michael (Hulk) Brown! I am not buying 99% of what Willson says! And I don't know, if "the criminal" punched "the cop". But: if Willson just would have let go of Brown, walking the way he was walking...in a WAR ZONE, as you say...none of that would have happened. There is a "war" raging! And jaywalking is a problem? Yeah right! As a matter of fact there was a sign at the exit of my base in Vietnam saying, "Warning you are now entering the most dangerous part of Vietnam - a highway." Did the criminal punch the cop? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848366/You-p-y-shoot-Explosive-grand-jury-evidence-reveals-aggressive-Michael-Brown-taunted-cop-Darren-Wilson-shot-dead.html Edited November 28, 2014 by thailiketoo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMNightRider Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Darren Wilson is so wrongly righteous that his own attorneys say..... Wilson's attorneys: He'll never be a police officer again http://www.ksdk.com/media/cinematic/video/70133190/ If officer Darren Wilson has proved any one thing, it is that when a cop decides to be petty, it can color an officer's life and also become a career ending fault. Darren Wilson is now the poster boy to the tiny minority of police in the United States that are Dirty Harry cops in Dirty Harry police departments wherever they may exist. The Darren Wilsons of police work give the 98% that are honorable and conscientious cops a bad name. Fortunately, most people in the US and elsewhere can recognize and make the distinction between the numbnut Darren Wilson and Ferguson PD cops, in contrast to the 98% of police who take pride in doing their demanding job professionally and well without shooting to death unarmed citizens after chasing them down while the unarmed citizens try to flee the hail of bullets loosed upon them. Like I mentioned to your friend. You can write nonsensical posts from now to domesday, it won't alter the facts of this incident. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post F430murci Posted November 28, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted November 28, 2014 Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says! Wanna know why? Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes! I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD! Shot several times, while surrendering! A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence?I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes. Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis. a) I don't believe they listened to "all the evidence". That is my point: the whole prosecution was flawed! It is NOT the duty of the prosecutor, to deliver a defense, to present all the evidence, to be fair to all parties! What has your little sightseeing- tour of East St. Louis to do with anything? DA or ADAs have duty to present fair and accurate evidence to grand juries. Would be a violation of right to present only a witness that supports the prosecution side when there is credible exculpatory evidence that establishes innocence. That is why this case would have never gone to the GJ to begin but for the racial powder keg created by politicians. Had Brown been white, there would have been no submission to GJ because credible witness testimony that was supported by physical evidence showed no crime had been committed. It is the duty to present the credible and exculpatory evidence to a GJ when forced to present to a GJ. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says! Wanna know why? Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes! I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD! Shot several times, while surrendering! A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence?I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes. Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis. a) I don't believe they listened to "all the evidence". That is my point: the whole prosecution was flawed! It is NOT the duty of the prosecutor, to deliver a defense, to present all the evidence, to be fair to all parties! What has your little sightseeing- tour of East St. Louis to do with anything? DA or ADAs have duty to present fair and accurate evidence to grand juries. Would be a violation of right to present only a witness that supports the prosecution side when there is credible exculpatory evidence that establishes innocence. That is why this case would have never gone to the GJ to begin but for the racial powder keg created by politicians. Had Brown been white, there would have been no submission to GJ because credible witness testimony that was supported by physical evidence showed no crime had been committed. It is the duty to present the credible and exculpatory evidence to a GJ when forced to present to a GJ. Had Brown been white, there would have been no submission... There it is again....the denial of reality in favor of a self-created fantasy that satisfies the self only. It's another attempt to escape from the confines of reality and the real world. It tries to deny what actually did happen and the skin color of its participants as real persons. "Had Brown been white" is the same-o same-o as "If Brown had been white...." Let's open a thread entitled, "If Michael Brown had been white" to see how few people even view it because it is meaningless and serves absolutely no purpose in respect of current reality and realities. Michael Brown was not white so never mind the "if Brown had been white" pretend and make-believe. Michael Brown was black and what happened in Ferguson, Missouri between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown could only have happened between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. Period. To illustrate the point further, let me say....had Wilson been a black officer he might not have decided to elevate jaywalking to the level of a serious crime and criminal activity, but Darren Wilson is not black...Darren Wilson is white and Michael Brown was black. That is the reality which means it cannot be rerun and recast to suit the peculiarities of people who are searching and reaching for an alternative reality. There isn't any alternative reality. There is only the reality we have. Michael Brown was black. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Darren Wilson is so wrongly righteous that his own attorneys say..... Wilson's attorneys: He'll never be a police officer again http://www.ksdk.com/media/cinematic/video/70133190/ If officer Darren Wilson has proved any one thing, it is that when a cop decides to be petty, it can color an officer's life and also become a career ending fault. Darren Wilson is now the poster boy to the tiny minority of police in the United States that are Dirty Harry cops in Dirty Harry police departments wherever they may exist. The Darren Wilsons of police work give the 98% that are honorable and conscientious cops a bad name. Fortunately, most people in the US and elsewhere can recognize and make the distinction between the numbnut Darren Wilson and Ferguson PD cops, in contrast to the 98% of police who take pride in doing their demanding job professionally and well without shooting to death unarmed citizens after chasing them down while the unarmed citizens try to flee the hail of bullets loosed upon them. Like I mentioned to your friend. You can write nonsensical posts from now to domesday, it won't alter the facts of this incident. Ah yes, facts. It is accepted that Darren Wilson will never be a cop again because of the fact of what he did and due to the fact Darren Wilson is, well, Darren Wilson. Some additional facts are that Wilson was never arrested, never charged, never arraigned, never booked....that Wilson was not pursued by law enforcement authorities when he went underground immediately after he killed Michael Brown....I think that's called fleeing the scene except that in this instance it was a killer cop who took flight. Darren Wilson and his attorneys have no sense of the realities at work in this case. The time for Wilson to go incognito and be the invisible man was after the grand jury whitewash had been announced. It is in Wilson's best interests to let the grand jury furor occur while he was holed up somewhere remote. Wilson would at least be out of sight if not out of mind. But no, Wilson went on tv to say a lot of things and to present himself as the high school graduate with bush league lawyers that he is. It was provocative for Wilson to accost Brown for jaywalking and it is provocative to try to make Michael Brown into a black Incredible Hulk that was going to break Wilson in two or some such. Wilson going on tv is to stream gasoline into the fire, especially when he says the wounded Brown reached to his waistband as if Brown had a gun, which Brown did not have, and would reach for it only then after Wilson himself claimed Brown had tried to reach for Wilson's gun back in the car. The fact is the more Darren Wilson talks the more he indicts himself so stay tuned to this network for further developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 It might be best if he is not a police officer again. Considering everything that's happened, he either might be too hesitant to fire his weapon or too quick. And it would be an absolute nightmare for the police force he was working for if he was involved in a shooting that had any ambiguity whatsoever. He'll probably end up writing a book and doing a speaking tour. After that, who knows. There are other ways to serve the community other than being a police officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The fact remains, if Brown had been white this would not have gone to the GJ The fact remains Michael Brown was black. 'If' is an attempt to escape to unreality, because 'if' Treyvon Martin had been white....but the reality and the fact is that Treyvon Martin was black too, period. So make a genuine effort to recognize the fact, accept the reality, deal with the significance of it in every respect to include socially, culturally, in politics and as an integral part of United States history. Denial gets people exactly nowhere and makes them appear to be not only plaintive but also evasive and, moreover, dreary, self-righteous, petulant. Slavery existed for 300 years until a bloody civil war ended it. Racist lawful institutional discrimination carried on for another 100 years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked a radical turning point as did the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If slavery had not existed..... One major and real shortcoming of the Civil Right Act is that it makes federal prosecution in instances of mortal racial conflict literally impossible to pursue, which means that that aspect of the law needs to be amended to enhance the credibility and the relevance of the judicial system and the viability of the institutions of law enforcement to include the extent to which the Act is applicable to everyday real life, as in Ferguson and St Louis county.. It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned. Now take the next step of the multi-step recovery process to deal effectively with a long term and profound social and cultural addiction. "It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned."It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned. Now take the next step of the multi-step recovery process to deal effectively with a long term and profound social and cultural addiction." What on earth are you talking about? Do you get this verbiage from Alcoholics Anonymous literature or pamphlets from your psychiatrist? "The fact remains Michael Brown was black." You sound like a broken record. The fact Brown was black had nothing to do with this incident. Your inability to process simple facts is astounding. You once said you had been a federal investigator. Who wrote your reports? If I supervised an investigator who submitted reports written like you write, I would reassign you to the janitorial department or some other sort of menial tasks. Once the Ferguson grand jury released their verdict, the blacks resumed their looting and burning of their business community. If anyone ever wondered why so many blacks occupy prison cells, all they have to do is look at the way they responded to the grand jury verdict. Somewhere along the line, these people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others for what they do. It is unfortunate Brown died as a result of being shot by the police. It would have been better if Brown had survived and been able to experience life as a recipient of correctional services. Do you get this verbiage from Alcoholics Anonymous literature or pamphlets from your psychiatrist? Dr. Fraud Freud I presume? If I My post you quote discusses the "If.....blah blah blah" syndrome as one of denial of reality in favor of constructing a fantasy you can live with. It is unfortunate Brown died as a result of being shot by the police. It would have been better if Brown had survived and been able to experience life as a recipient of correctional services. Next thing you'll be out dancing on his grave if you haven't done it already. Now i'll quote my own post using the boldface you added..... "It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned." I do indeed commend you and others for having up to this point quit trying to get away with the term "reverse racism". It is good to see some of the fiction around here getting toned down or abandoned completely. "The fact remains Michael Brown was black." You sound like a broken record. The fact Brown was black had nothing to do with this incident. Your inability to process simple facts is astounding. You quote my reply to another poster who has a different take on the color and race issue from your view. You deleted the post to which I replied and inserted your own view for that of the poster. The poster's view is.....The fact remains, if Brown had been white this would not have gone to the GJ Do try to keep up with these things because misapplying quotes and whole posts can point to an inability to process basic information and data. Interesting reply. I sure wish you would enrol in an English writing course. It would make it much easier to decipher your nonsencial postings if you could write. I feel like a code breaker after reading your posts. The feedback is appreciated even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with your completely bungled posts in which you not only misapplied quotes, but also mangled three whole posts of others and your own to boot. I get a hilarious picture in my mind's eye of some guy riding his motorcycle and trying to chew gum at the same time...and at night besides. There anyway are two categories of political opponents who respond to my posted materials. One reads my posts then replies by saying I can't possibly be an adult and that I should say hello to my psychiatrist for him. The other does not read my posts but replies by saying I can't possibly be an adult and that I should say hello to my psychiatrist for him. Keep on truckin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post F430murci Posted November 28, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence? I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes. Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis. a) I don't believe they listened to "all the evidence". That is my point: the whole prosecution was flawed! It is NOT the duty of the prosecutor, to deliver a defense, to present all the evidence, to be fair to all parties! What has your little sightseeing- tour of East St. Louis to do with anything? DA or ADAs have duty to present fair and accurate evidence to grand juries. Would be a violation of right to present only a witness that supports the prosecution side when there is credible exculpatory evidence that establishes innocence. That is why this case would have never gone to the GJ to begin but for the racial powder keg created by politicians. Had Brown been white, there would have been no submission to GJ because credible witness testimony that was supported by physical evidence showed no crime had been committed. It is the duty to present the credible and exculpatory evidence to a GJ when forced to present to a GJ. Had Brown been white, there would have been no submission... There it is again....the denial of reality in favor of a self-created fantasy that satisfies the self only. It's another attempt to escape from the confines of reality and the real world. It tries to deny what actually did happen and the skin color of its participants as real persons. "Had Brown been white" is the same-o same-o as "If Brown had been white...." Let's open a thread entitled, "If Michael Brown had been white" to see how few people even view it because it is meaningless and serves absolutely no purpose in respect of current reality and realities. Michael Brown was not white so never mind the "if Brown had been white" pretend and make-believe. Michael Brown was black and what happened in Ferguson, Missouri between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown could only have happened between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. Period. To illustrate the point further, let me say....had Wilson been a black officer he might not have decided to elevate jaywalking to the level of a serious crime and criminal activity, but Darren Wilson is not black...Darren Wilson is white and Michael Brown was black. That is the reality which means it cannot be rerun and recast to suit the peculiarities of people who are searching and reaching for an alternative reality. There isn't any alternative reality. There is only the reality we have. Michael Brown was black. End of. In all of those wasted words you just wrote, you completely missed point. DAs and ADAs don't present cases when there is overwhelming exculpatory evidence. You are all over the board. Early on, you and others combined about Officer Wilson's right to invoke the 5th and not testify as is it would be concealing evidence. Now I hear nothing but complaints from you guys about him and others providing testimony that proved his innocence. Edited November 28, 2014 by F430murci 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarky66 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Merci. Welcome to the sane side. Normally I have nothing but the highest respect for our current and former service members but I'll make an exception in this case to a certain poster on this board who belongs to the John Kerry wing of the lunatic fringe. Did you throw your medals over the White House fence? Like your buddy Hanoi John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) Merci. Welcome to the sane side. Normally I have nothing but the highest respect for our current and former service members but I'll make an exception in this case to a certain poster on this board who belongs to the John Kerry wing of the lunatic fringe. Did you throw your medals over the White House fence? Like your buddy Hanoi John? No you do not have the respect you claim to have, not "normally" and not otherwise. Your respect is conditional, and it is conditional on a person having the 'correct' political viewpoint, as your post directly testifies. Either you respect non-partisan constitutionally based military service or you don't respect it. You do not respect it. If you are military or a fellow veteran of the military, I thank you for your service. Edited November 28, 2014 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post CMNightRider Posted November 29, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted November 29, 2014 Two court cases likely had some bearing in the grand jury’s decision-making process: 1. In Jones v. City of St. Louis, 92 F.Supp.2d 949 (E.D. Mo., 2000) the federal district court, in a lawsuit from the police use of deadly force, held that the use of deadly force is reasonable where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others. 2. In Fitzgerald v. Patrick, 927 F.2d 1037 (8th Cir., 1991) the 8th circuit federal court of appeals, in another police use-of-force case out of Missouri, said law enforcement officers are justified in using deadly force in self-defense or in defense of a third person if a reasonable person in similar circumstance would believe it was necessary. Still, the person who knows woefully little about police work (a few pinheads on this site) will ask, “How can an officer be in fear of death or great bodily harm from an unarmed teenager?” It really boils down to two things: An unarmed assailant can legitimately threaten life or great bodily harm to another person — even an officer — and an objectively reasonable officer in a similar position to Wilson would have done what Wilson did. When Wilson stopped the pair, they were walking down the middle of the street, something often done as a means of intimidating drivers and pedestrians. This action alone suggests a mindset bent on confrontation. Further, remember that Officer Wilson told investigators that Brown had pushed him back into his SUV, then struggled for his handgun inside that squad car. When there is a physical fight between an officer and an assailant, there is always at least one gun present. If the officer loses consciousness or the ability to completely protect himself/herself, that gun may be used against them. There are a couple of posters on this site who seem to have difficulty processing simple facts. For the rest of the posters who are trying to understand why Brown was shot, maybe this information will help you. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Inflammatory posts have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnMyWay2 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 The cop did the right thing. I know people like Mike Brown who will come at you with their hands up trying to play dumb. Almost certain that he disobeyed the officer and ended up getting shot nothing more to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Or izzit because Darren Wilson is going down If you think Darren Wilson is "going down", you are even more delusional than I thought. He was cleared by the Grand Jury, he will never be charged criminally and he is famous enough to make some money for his troubles, if he plays his cards right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Or izzit because Darren Wilson is going down If you think Darren Wilson is "going down", you are even more delusional than I thought. He was cleared by the Grand Jury, he will never be charged criminally and he is famous enough to make some money for his troubles, if he plays his cards right. I don't see Darren Wilson as a card sharp....or anything sharp, not to mention his bush league lawyers who let Robert McCulloch handle the defense presentation and case. McCulloch essentially leading the defense team is the central problem in the entire story of the grand jury. McCulloch should have recused himself as was demanded by the local community from day one, to include others throughout the country. Wilson will never be a police officer again. The Ferguson police chief is going down too only in his case ignominiously out to pasture. I wouldn't like it if society from coast to coast and border to border told me in no uncertain terms I couldn't ever be in my profession again and neither would you or anyone else. Some segments of the society cheer Wilson and are dancing on Michael Brown's grave, but most people have no time for him or wouldn't give him the time of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) I am not so sure that he will never be a policeman again, but he will be in danger if he continues in Ferguson. He would probably be OK in a white conservative area after a few months have passed and he is out of the limelight or working for the feds. Most Americans will care less about this in a very short time. After all, he was cleared by a Grand Jury. Edited November 29, 2014 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zydeco Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I know in the instance of myself, I rarely use either word. Others use them either frequently or regularly, or consistently. This is a thread about the Michael Brown shooting. It would be ever so pleasant if certain posters stopped trying to turn every single thread in which they participate into a discussion of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I am not so sure that he will never be a policeman again, but he will be in danger if he continues in Ferguson. He would probably be OK in a white conservative area after a few months have passed and he is out of the limelight or working for the feds. Most Americans will care less about this in a very short time. After all, he was cleared by a Grand Jury. Maybe you and your friends can hire Wilson to sit and snooze at your gate. Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson 'will quit policing' 'Darren will never be a police officer again, and he understands that', says lawyer for the officer who killed an unarmed teenager in Missouri Darren Wilson, the Missouri police officer who fatally shot the unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, will likely never return to policing, his lawyer has said "Realistically, he can't go back to being a police officer, he knows that. There's no illusion about any of this." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11259596/Ferguson-police-officer-Darren-Wilson-will-quit-policing.html Tweet 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) he was cleared by a Grand Jury. Yes, and I'm sure he's thankful for that. But atthis point I think Wilson is probably most concerned about the federal and/or civil suits that will almost certainly be filed in the coming months. Unfortunately for him, this is far from over. It has the potential to drag on for years and ultimately bankrupt him. Edited November 29, 2014 by up-country_sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM07 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Are there any on the "side" of Officer Willson, who will not go all out ad hominem attacs? You must be fairly insecure, if you have to go on name-calling people with an opposite opinion. Sad, really! Edited November 29, 2014 by DM07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 There will not be any federal charges. They would have to prove that he killed Michael Brown because he was black and beyond reasonable doubt. No evidence supports that. Civil charges are a possibility, but the fact that no criminal charges were filed, makes that much more difficult to win. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of good lawyers who would be more than happy to defend him pro bono - at no cost.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) ONLY legal "experts" with an inherent hyper-partisan bias would claim otherwise. Proving that Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown because he was black and beyond reasonable doubt is pretty much impossible. Eric Holder might try to pretend otherwise, like he did with George Zimmerman, but, like in that case, it will never happen. “The evidence at this point does not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson,” said one person briefed on the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.Justice Department officials are loath to acknowledge publicly that their case cannot now meet the high legal threshold for a successful civil rights prosecution. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-civil-rights-charges-unlikely-against-police-officer-in-ferguson-shooting/2014/10/31/56189d80-6055-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html Edited November 29, 2014 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I originally posted about a suit filed in federal court not federal charges. These two things are not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I am not so sure that he will never be a policeman again, but he will be in danger if he continues in Ferguson. He would probably be OK in a white conservative area after a few months have passed and he is out of the limelight or working for the feds. Most Americans will care less about this in a very short time. After all, he was cleared by a Grand Jury. Maybe you and your friends can hire Wilson to sit and snooze at your gate. Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson 'will quit policing''Darren will never be a police officer again, and he understands that', says lawyer for the officer who killed an unarmed teenager in Missouri Darren Wilson, the Missouri police officer who fatally shot the unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, will likely never return to policing, his lawyer has said "Realistically, he can't go back to being a police officer, he knows that. There's no illusion about any of this." <snip> I'm wondering why you have such an obsession with the future career path Officer Wilson might face. You obviously detest the man and everything he stands for, so why the over hyped concern? You also keep claiming his defense team was "bush league" (my words, not yours). You live in Thailand not St. Louis, so it is highly unlikely you will ever have the occasion to meet Wilson nor to utilize any members of his defense team. Keeping up the incessant drum beat about this is just a waste of band width, time and energy, both yours and your readers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I originally posted about a suit filed in federal court not federal charges. These two things are not the same. What potential suit filed in federal court do you foresee? Thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thailiketoo Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Are there any on the "side" of Officer Willson, who will not go all out ad hominem attacs? You must be fairly insecure, if you have to go on name-calling people with an opposite opinion. Sad, really! You stated in a previous post that the criminal was shot while trying to surrender. The evidence presented to the Grand Jury does not support your hypothesis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I originally posted about a suit filed in federal court not federal charges. These two things are not the same. What potential suit filed in federal court do you foresee? Thanks. From what I've read, Title 42 Section 1983 is a distinct possibility. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now