Ferguson

[SnakeTom]

Here is what I view that is wrong with the system. First of all a indictment is only a charge not a conviction of anything. The Grand Jury only hears one side of the facts namely whatever the prosecutor provides. It is said that a skilled prosecutor can get an indictment in just about any case that he wants to. It is common knowledge that the police and prosecutors office work hand in hand on many, many cases. Thus it seems to me that there is an inherent conflict of interest when the prosecutors office is handing chages against a police officer. In those cases a special prosecutor should be appointed automatically. Now I'm not saying the results would or would not be any different but the procedure would be handled in a fairer manner and there would be less questions about conflicts and impartiality. Quite honestly I think in both of these recent cases the decision should have been decided at a trial with all the facts being aired out in front of a judge and Jury.

Tom K

 

[Pirate6711]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
Here is what I view that is wrong with the system. First of all a indictment is only a charge not a conviction of anything. The Grand Jury only hears one side of the facts namely whatever the prosecutor provides. It is said that a skilled prosecutor can get an indictment in just about any case that he wants to. It is common knowledge that the police and prosecutors office work hand in hand on many, many cases. Thus it seems to me that there is an inherent conflict of interest when the prosecutors office is handing chages against a police officer. In those cases a special prosecutor should be appointed automatically. Now I'm not saying the results would or would not be any different but the procedure would be handled in a fairer manner and there would be less questions about conflicts and impartiality. Quite honestly I think in both of these recent cases the decision should have been decided at a trial with all the facts being aired out in front of a judge and Jury.

Tom K

Agree 100%

 

[SHUMike]

A society that chooses to make enemies with its Police had better be prepared to make friends with its criminals

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SHUMike:

A society that chooses to make enemies with its Police had better be prepared to make friends with its criminals

What a load of crap.

An officer went against NYC policy and choked a guy who died... and the people who think he did something wrong are making enemies of police officers? Police officers need some kind of accountability... like every one else.

 

[HALL85]

I agree with Tom's view on the built in conflict in the current system and a need to re-evaluate the grand jury process when a police officer is involved. I'm not in favor of the Federal Government getting involved, but rather the states should evaluate and make any necessary changes. That's where politicians, the judicial system should be spending their energy.

Unfortunately, you have idiots like DiBlasio trying to make this about race when there is zero evidence that it is. His press conference the other day was sickening to say the least. We need to hold law enforcement accountable, but his diatribe was inciteful and a joke. When he made the comment about the President stating that Dante reminded him of himself when he was young, I was about to puke. I guess it's because both Dante and Barack are half white.

I'd also like to see all law enforcement utilize body-cams ASAP. Data shows in those departments that have deployed them, that complaints and law suits drop precipitously.

 

[Pirate6711]

Originally posted by SHUMike:

A society that chooses to make enemies with its Police had better be prepared to make friends with its criminals

Hmmm....

 

[Seton75]

This is the police force that had a cop convicted of sodomizing a guy with a f'ing plunger. What kind of sick bastard would do something like that. They got the Central Park 5 sent away - ruining their lives - when the actual murder (who was a convicted rapist) would have been easy to find if they looked. Amadu Diala and the 41 shots. This stuff all adds up in the public consciousness.

The cops have a helluva tough job. They sign on to do it, and they should expect oversight, like any other worker.

 

[SHUMike]

http://nypost.com/2014/08/14/not-a-chokehold-truth-of-the-garner-arrest/

 

[SHUMike]

Guys, you have changed my mind.When Michael Brown pushed the door closed on the cop and wrestled for his gun, the cop should have let him walk away. When Garner told the cops that he wasn't going to be arrested, they should have walked away also. The criminal should dictate how and when they should be arrested.

 

[Merge]

Mike, brown was unarmed. Wilson had mace and a Batton. Yet he had to shoot him multiple times?

The cop in NYC put Garner Ina choke hold which is against policy.

Not saying either of them should have walked away but neither one had to die.

 

[SHUMike]

I'm not happy with either of them dying but death is a tragic consequence when you live a life of crime. How should both cases have been handled?

Both had other options, They could have complied.
This post was edited on 12/7 12:05 PM by SHUMike

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SHUMike:

I'm not happy with either of them dying but death is a tragic consequence when you live a life of crime. How should both cases have been handled?

Both had other options, They could have complied.
This post was edited on 12/7 12:05 PM by SHUMike

Is the penalty for noncompliance death?

There are many other possibilities, but is it unreasonable to think that a trained police officer armed with mace, a baton and a gun could have been able to incapacitate Brown, at at least attempt to with non lethal options?

If you think that is unreasonable, Wilson should have followed at a distance and waited for backup.

Is it unreasonable to expect the officer in NYC to follow protocol and not put Garner in a choke hold?

 

[HALL85]

Merge, the penalty for non compliance is not death, but it becomes a distinct possibility when you grab a policemen's gun.

Policeman are human too and if you're put in a situation for the first time in your short career, I think it's naive to think they can do a perfect mental check list every time. So if Brown is reaching for his gun your suggesting Wilson should have let go and reached for the mace? What if Brown had gotten his gun, shot Wilson and used it on others? Easy to play Monday-morning quarterback but I'll go by what was presented to the GJ.

 

[Merge]

If he died next to the car I would probably agree with you but attempting to grab the gun has nothing to do with what happened after Brown ran away and Wilson followed.

Cops can't chase and kill a guy because they almost got their gun a few minutes ago.

 

[HALL85]

The forensics showed Wilson did not shoot Brown while he was running away. He shot him when he turned and charged him. Should he have waited until he was a few feet in front of him to spray mace?

 

[Section112]

Merge has clearly chosen not to believe the forensics in this case. That is the bottom line or his answers would be different.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by Merge:
If he died next to the car I would probably agree with you but attempting to grab the gun has nothing to do with what happened after Brown ran away and Wilson followed.

Cops can't chase and kill a guy because they almost got their gun a few minutes ago.

Wilson responded to the scene of a robbery. When the alleged perpetrator ran, his job is to chase him down. When the alleged perpetrator then charges him, and has a significant size advantage, the officer has precious little time to decide how best to defend himself.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Merge:
If he died next to the car I would probably agree with you but attempting to grab the gun has nothing to do with what happened after Brown ran away and Wilson followed.

Cops can't chase and kill a guy because they almost got their gun a few minutes ago.

I think you are saying that you would hope, no expect, that police procedures would have tactics and weapons other than a police automatic with which Wilson coud have executed his duty to apprehend Brown.

So do we all.

Sadly, realistic budgets prohibit a blanket of a cop on every corner to ''cut the bad guys off at the pass.'' I am not in law enforcement, but it is my understanding that an officer is instructed to use ''reasonable force'' --- the force that another reasonable person would consider appropriate --- to apprehend anyone suspected of perpetrating a crime.

Law abiding citizens expect to comply with the instructions of any law enforcement officer. If not they expect to suffer the consequences.

Wilson was physically assaulted by Brown --- with wounds, shell casings, and multiple African-American witnesses corroborating --- he ordered Brown to stop. Brown stopped and turned and charged. There was conflicting testimony about whether Brown raised his hands in surrender. Almost all of those which were neither rescinded nor containing inconsistent facts said Brown raised his hands merely in a sprinter's stance and then Brown charged Wilson. Wilson fired and kept firing until Brown stopped. Then Wilson stopped firing. Then Brown again charged and Wilson fired until Brown fell.

Several witnesses said they wondered why Brown did not just lie down or at least stop when told to do so. They opined that when Brown charged Wilson they expected Wilson to shoot. So they provided the requisite evidence that another reasonable person viewed Wilson's firing as reasonable.

Merge, what would you like/expect to see a police officer in that situation do?

Not tell the perpetrator to stop?

Not to fire when ''charged'' by a much bigger man who had just assaulted him and injured him?

What do you suggest?

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:

Originally posted by Merge:
If he died next to the car I would probably agree with you but attempting to grab the gun has nothing to do with what happened after Brown ran away and Wilson followed.

Cops can't chase and kill a guy because they almost got their gun a few minutes ago.

Wilson responded to the scene of a robbery. When the alleged perpetrator ran, his job is to chase him down. When the alleged perpetrator then charges him, and has a significant size advantage, the officer has precious little time to decide how best to defend himself.

Wilson did not respond to the call. He testified that he heard the call but was not responding to it. His supervisor testified that WIlson knew nothing about the call, and that Wilson told him he knew nothing about the call.

Seems like you have been fed a certain false narrative from somewhere..,. like the 6'4 giant against the puny 5 year old officer Wilson. Officer Wilson is also 6'4" 210. Sure Brown had a good 70 lbs on him, but Wilson is not a small dude.

The evidence suggests that Brown was guilty of attacking the officer, I don't debate that.
The evidence also suggests that Brown charged Wilson from about 25 feet away.

My question (primarily after reading the testimony from witness 10) is... why after having shot him multiple times could he not have gone a non lethal route. Those last few shots are a little bothersome to me.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Old_alum:

I think you are saying that you would hope, no expect, that police procedures would have tactics and weapons other than a police automatic with which Wilson coud have executed his duty to apprehend Brown.

Merge, what would you like/expect to see a police officer in that situation do?

I would hope police officers would use lethal force when necessary. Again, if Brown died next to the car after trying to grab the gun, I am fine with how that played out.

I think if Wilson knew he was physically bested and that Brown posed a threat to his life if he tried to apprehend him, he probably should have followed in his car and waited for backup. I think that was a lapse of judgement for Wilson.

After being charged by Brown and connecting with 4 bullets, I would think officer Wilson should have had the appropriate training to be able to stop Brown without killing him at that point, but he then fired another three bullets. I don't have an understanding of police training and procedures so I am not saying this was against protocol or anything, but killing Brown should have been the last resort and I am not 100% convinced that it was.

 

[HALL85]

Maybe because if someone continues to charge you from 25ft away (a very short distance), there isn't much more you can do to stop them other than keep shooting. There is very little time to react at that point..a couple of seconds at best.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by Old_alum:

I think you are saying that you would hope, no expect, that police procedures would have tactics and weapons other than a police automatic with which Wilson coud have executed his duty to apprehend Brown.

Merge, what would you like/expect to see a police officer in that situation do?

After being charged by Brown and connecting with 4 bullets, I would think officer Wilson should have had the appropriate training to be able to stop Brown without killing him at that point, but he then fired another three bullets. I don't have an understanding of police training and procedures so I am not saying this was against protocol or anything, but killing Brown should have been the last resort and I am not 100% convinced that it was.

Brown did not fall or surrender when he first stopped. Wilson could not be sure that Brown had been wounded. Then in an instant Brown charged Wilson again.

How could Wilson be sure that Brown was injured? Why should he take the chance with a known criminal that the demonstrably much stronger Brown had been incapacitated?

How could anyone there or especially not in that moment be ''100% convinced that (shooting) was'' not a ''last resort''??








This post was edited on 12/8 12:17 PM by Old_alum

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by Merge:
Seems like you have been fed a certain false narrative from somewhere..,. like the 6'4 giant against the puny 5 year old officer Wilson. Officer Wilson is also 6'4" 210. Sure Brown had a good 70 lbs on him, but Wilson is not a small dude.

I have access to the same information that you do. Whether he was in the car or not, what the officer was doing there, and why he fired "bothersome last shots," is immaterial, and that isn't my opinion -- it was borne out in a grand jury decision.

You must have never taken a physics course (of course you did, you're a generalist) to think 70# insignificant. I'm 180 pounds. I could fight a 110# woman or I could fight a 250# man, and that would all be within your standard deviation?

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:
I have access to the same information that you do. Whether he was in the car or not, what the officer was doing there, and why he fired "bothersome last shots," is immaterial, and that isn't my opinion -- it was borne out in a grand jury decision.

You must have never taken a physics course (of course you did, you're a generalist) to think 70# insignificant. I'm 180 pounds. I could fight a 110# woman or I could fight a 250# man, and that would all be within your standard deviation?

Saying Wilson was responding to a call does change the narrative a bit. That matters.
Either Wilson, or his supervisor lied about his knowledge of the robbery. That also matters.

Are police officers trained to take down unarmed criminals without killing them?
If so, did Wilson attempt any of those procedures?

 

[HALL85]

Based on the grand jury findings it sounds like Wilson was trying to take him down, but Brown kept on coming. Merge, unfortunately the WWF does not exist in the real world. Police officers are trained to use lethal force if they believe they are in a life threatening situation. That's essentially what happened.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Merge:

Wilson did not respond to the call. He testified that he heard the call but was not responding to it. His supervisor testified that WIlson knew nothing about the call, and that Wilson told him he knew nothing about the call.

When you later insist that one of them is lying and that this should bother us, are you not assuming that second highlighted point could not have addressed only Brown's involvement in the robbery?

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Old_alum:

When you later insist that one of them is lying and that this should bother us, are you not assuming that second highlighted point could not have addressed only Brown's involvement in the robbery?

Grand jury testimony - Pretty clear that someone there is lying.
Only one of them would actually have a reason to lie of course...

Officer Wilson -
A: While on the sick case call, a call came out for a stealing in progress from the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling toward QT. I didn't hear the entire call, I was on my portable radio, which isn't exactly the best. I did hear that a suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of Cigarillos was stolen.

Sargant NLU -

Q: Did he know about it? Did he talk about knowing about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.
[GJ, Vol. V, pp. 52-53]
Question by a GJ member
Q: Now, my question to you is this. Are you saying that because he told you he didn't know about it or are you saying that because he didn't mention It to you when you were talking to him?
A: He did not mention it to me again. I learned about it at a later time.
Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn't know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?
A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.
Q: He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
A: Correct

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by Old_alum:

When you later insist that one of them is lying and that this should bother us, are you not assuming that second highlighted point could not have addressed only Brown's involvement in the robbery?

Grand jury testimony - Pretty clear that someone there is lying.
Only one of them would actually have a reason to lie of course...

Officer Wilson -
A: While on the sick case call, a call came out for a stealing in progress from the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling toward QT. I didn't hear the entire call, I was on my portable radio, which isn't exactly the best. I did hear that a suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of Cigarillos was stolen.

Sargant NLU -


Q: Did he know about it? Did he talk about knowing about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.
[GJ, Vol. V, pp. 52-53]

Question by a GJ member

Q: Now, my question to you is this. Are you saying that because he told you he didn't know about it or are you saying that because he didn't mention It to you when you were talking to him?
A: He did not mention it to me again. I learned about it at a later time.
Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn't know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?
A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.
Q: He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
A: Correct

[/QUOTE]
LOL
Boy you are a stickler for detail----as was the Grand Jury member, I guess.

Do you really believe that based on the ''Sargant'' (sic) testifying with a conclusion that : '' He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green'', that Wilson had specifically told him that Wilson did not know "anything" about the call. WOW

And based on these GJM pressing questions to the "Sargant" (sic)
Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn't know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?
A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.
Q: He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
A: Correct

you are sure that Wilson is lying???? Double WOW!!!

Have you ever interrogated (professionally questioned) one person about another person's statements? And then talked to the subject yourself? And found any more than say 50-70% overlap??

People's memories are flawed 5 minutes after their OWN experiences.

No one should ever expect 100% recall and accuracy.

And based on a slight difference --- say for example, Wilson might have said that he was not aware that it was the Ferguson Market, itself, that was robbed --- in the answer to a very specific question from a GJM and not from the DA, that Wilson perjured himself????

Again WOW!!

You should read the book "The Social Animal" by David Brooks, or "Brain Bugs" by Dean Buonomano.

It would be nice if policemen could "stop" charging criminals without shooting them.

It might be even nicer if people's memories could be relied upon with such confidence.

 

[Merge]

I wonder how many people have been arrested based only off of a police officers recollection of events... Yet when this police office, Wilson's boss, recalls Wilson flat out telling him that Wilson said he didn't know anything about the call... You still side with Wilson because his boss might be mistaken? Really?

 

[Old_alum]

Have you read either of those books?

Have you professionally interviewed one person about what another person said?

On that you call perjury?

Where were you when Clinton said he had no sexual relations with his intern?

LOL











This post was edited on 12/9 12:35 AM by Old_alum

 

[HALL85]

Yes, keep trying to overanalyze every thread of conversation when the overwhelming amount of forensic evidennce and eye witness reports support the grand jurys decision not to indict.

We want our police to act like robots, and respond perfectly to every life and death situation they face......but we want them to respond immediately and protect us in an emergency and bitch about property taxes being too high even though they should have more training.

We expect the TSA agents who essentially earn minimum wage to ensure that we are free from any terroristic threat when flying....but we don't want to pay more for a flight, be inconvenienced or profile individuals that have suspicious backgrounds.

We want world class healthcare, when we want it with complete choice....but don't want to pay for it.

We want everything but don't want to take the personal responsibility.....easier to tweet, bitch, take the popular way out. The media is a microcosm of our society....a mile wide and an inch deep....more about ratings than facts.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Merge:
I wonder how many people have been arrested based only off of a police officers recollection of events... Yet when this police office, Wilson's boss, recalls Wilson flat out telling him that Wilson said he didn't know anything about the call... You still side with Wilson because his boss might be mistaken? Really?

The tragic side of this is that I am sure there have been 1,000s if 10,000s of miscarriages of justice.

People do have agendas.

People do "misremember".

DNA, fingerprints, etc. are wonderful, but often police do not have a smoking gun.

As Churchill said about Democracy, ours is the worst form of criminal justice---EXCEPT for all of the others.

Is it perfect? No way!

Can it be improved? Absolutely, and we should all support such improvements.

Should the current law enforcement system be disabled or disillusioned from a lack of support while we seek perfection? NO WAY!!!

As Demi said in "A Few Good Men", they are all that stands between us and the bad people.

Is Wilson perfect? No
Is anyone?
Can more be done?
Always
Should Wilson be prosecuted?
No! The Justice System under extreme DOJ scrutiny said there is no grounds to pursue that.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Old_alum:
The tragic side of this is that I am sure there have been 1,000s if 10,000s of miscarriages of justice.

People do have agendas.

People do "misremember".

I am not suggesting that the testimony is enough to convict Wilson, but the guy was questioned for a reason. If his testimony doesn't match up with Wilson and we don't care... why are we questioning him at all?

 

[Section112]

Lesson 1 - do what the police tell you to do, don't resist arrest and don't try and hurt a cop and rush him.

Lesson 2 - don't rob a store and have a rap sheet a mile long and expect any respect from police or a grand jury - you haven't earned it - life isn't fair get over it.

Lesson 3 - a cop with a sterling record who has never used his gun ever and has forensic evidence to back up his story will usually get the benefit of the doubt from a grand jury because he/she has earned it - life isn't fair get over it. Without police putting it on the line everyday we would have anarchy (which we practically have now).

Lesson 4 - go back to lesson 1

Merge you have said in a few posts you are fine with the outcome of this case. Your posts don't seem to back that up.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by Old_alum:
The tragic side of this is that I am sure there have been 1,000s if not 10,000s of miscarriages of justice.

People do have agendas.

People do "misremember".

I am not suggesting that the testimony is enough to convict Wilson, but the guy was questioned for a reason. If his testimony doesn't match up with Wilson and we don't care... why are we questioning him at all?

A transcript is not an audit document nor a priority list nor a tactical compendium of unfulfilled tasks.

In the supposed 10,000 pages of testimony do you think every discrepancy deserves a special prosecutor? Do you suppose that any discrepancy which does merit further investigation is ignored? Do you expect the prosecutor and GJM NOT to follow-up in some fashion on any disquieting answer to any of their own questions.

Audit does not mean totally micromanage. That is not audit's job. Audit teams are meant to assure quality. Do you believe the Police Internal Review, the DOJ, the NAACP and the media will let any good deed go unpunished?








This post was edited on 12/9 10:04 AM by Old_alum

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:


Merge you have said in a few posts you are fine with the outcome of this case. Your posts don't seem to back that up.

Ultimately I am.

I think the Garner decision in NYC was wrong. I don't understand how an officer who broke protocol resulting in a death does not get indicted.

That makes me question the process especially when a supervising officer contradicts Wilson regarding the narrative that Wilson presented.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Old_alum:
In the supposed 10,000 pages of testimony do you think every discrepancy deserves a special prosecutor? Do you suppose that any discrepancy which does merit further investigation is ignored?

There is a discussion currently saying that prosecutors do not fully attempt to indict police officer's since they have to work with them so frequently.

I am questioning the process. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Merge:

That makes me question the process especially when a supervising officer contradicts Wilson regarding the narrative that Wilson presented.

Please explain how the import of whether or not Wilson knew the particulars of the robbery which had taken place in a specific store is essential to justice in the shooting of Brown.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by Section112:


Merge you have said in a few posts you are fine with the outcome of this case. Your posts don't seem to back that up.

Ultimately I am.

I think the Garner decision in NYC was wrong. I don't understand how an officer who broke protocol resulting in a death does not get indicted.

That makes me question the process especially when a supervising officer contradicts Wilson regarding the narrative that Wilson presented.

The reason the NY Officer didn't get indicted is because the Prosecutor asked for one charge that testimony and evidence did not support. If he had either offered multiple options or a lessor charge, like reckless endangerment, it would have likely gone to trial. If you want to rip the legal system and prosecutor, go ahead, but that's why there was no indictment....but than again, no one reads the detail anymore.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Old_alum:

Please explain how the import of whether or not Wilson knew the particulars of the robbery which had taken place in a specific store is essential to justice in the shooting of Brown.

If I didn't see his Sargent contradict him, it would not be important at all.

IF... and just go with me on this one... If Wilson lied about his knowledge of the robbery, would you think it is important?