ferguson grand jury reaches its decision

Post Reply New Topic

Was it common sense to try and wrestle Wilson's sidearm from him because he told Brown to get out of the street? There's many things Brown did that go against common sense. Robbing a store for some cigars goes against common sense (I'd say if he was starving and stole some bread, then that's something you could possibly do depending on whether you could get help if you were starving or not). We're dealing with someone that's shown to lack common sense. Hell, walking down the middle of a road goes against common sense and is one of the first things most people learn regarding roads.

No one in their right mind would do a zillion of things that they do, but they do.

Using that as an argument to point to guilt on Wilson's part means exactly nothing.

They found Brown had THC, an active ingredient in marijuana in is his body at the autopsy; it is not clear if this influenced him to act they way he did or not.

Does anyone have a link to somewhere that has all the evidence that was presented to the jury?

Finally!

Someone else on WP actually wants to examine the evidence, instead of posting half-baked comments.

Google is Your Friend: Ferguson Shooting Grand Jury Documents

Good luck! It took twelve people three months to read through ALL of the evidence and reach the determination that (1) there was no known reason to indict the officer; and (2) the material evidence did not support the alleged eye-witness testimony, which must therefor be disregarded.

That's... a lot of documents. I presume the most important ones are the coroners reports and the witnesses?

I don't know how the grand jury system works, we don't do things that way over here. Is it a majority decision on whether to indict or not? Unanimous to indict, and if one dissents, they don't? I'm wondering if this decision not to indict was unanimous, or if there was disagreement in the jury.

It didn't support some of the testimonies.

What I have determined so far is this - the interviewers and eyewitnesses would be very bad at playing, um just a minute. It's no surprise the jury took so long to analyse them, they're difficult to read...

I don't quite understand the desire to go outside when there's a cop shooting at someone, though.

What seems to have happened, according to the witnesses I've read so far (the first few, though), is that they fought in the car, Brown was shot, Brown ran off and was possibly shot again (in the arm, according to the autopsy - attempt to incapacitate him?). Brown turns around and moves towards Wilson, who then opens fire, killing Brown.

That seems to not be in disupute by anyone, on either side...?

So, the main question is - was Brown surrendering, or was he charging? If the latter, then the jury was correct; if the former, then they aren't (could they run it again, since it was an indictment rather than a trial of guilt? I don't know how US law works).

However, it is very likely that Wilson acted beyond what was necessary for self defence. Not murder, and I don't blame him (at least, not yet, I've still got plenty of documents to read), but it seems that he went into tunnel vision and kept firing after Brown was incapacitated, which led to the fatal head shot..?

What does seem quite clear is, Wilson was acting out of a belief that he was under threat, not out of some maliciousness towards Brown (I mean, are your enemies *really* evil?).

I agree on both counts. Law-enforcement officers today are instructed to "fire until the threat is stopped." I have always believed that the instruction has been interpreted as "fire until you no longer feel threatened" by even the most seasoned officers. The two statements are very much legally and practically different, and objectivity must decide their meaning, especially among officers who choose to fire their firearms. In other words, the instruction, not its interpretation should determine its enforcement or prosecution.

Having said that, anyone who has received firearm instruction understands that, once an officer has drawn his or her firearm at you or anyone near you, you comply loudly, slowly and carefully. Any reaching into a pocket or inside pants (let alone charging an officer) can and, very likely, will receive the response of the officer firing at you because, at that point, the "fight or flight" scenerio overtakes all rational actions and the officer is authorized to defend himself or herself under the presumption of lawful use of deadly force. A drawn and aimed firearm beats one in the pants every time; it marks the moment when smartified individuals give up.

Knowledgable firearm-using officers and knowledgable firearm-using citizens often witness the actions and opinions of those who have never studied firearm handling in their lives and don't appreciate this protocol. My guess is that Brown knew nothing about firearms except what he thought he knew. He certainly knew nothing about the moment of lawful use of deadly force. Maybe he decided to untwist his boxers at the wrong moment, beats me. But, he paid for that mistake with his life. After seeing the robbery video recording of Brown, I have little sympathy for his subsequent actions.

Is it possible to understand Wilson's point of view that he was trying to apprehend Brown who Wilson was warned had just robbed a store, and might be armed, while also believing that Wilson probably wouldn't have fired if Brown hadn't reached into his pants and charged Wilson? In my opinion, Wilson has done the minimum of apologetic actions by resigning. When so many officers who shoot citizens ignore it all and advance their careers to a pensioned retirement, Wilson's action could be a teachable moment to a lot of officers.

I think the citizens of Ferguson showed the whole country last night why Wilson was afraid of Brown.
So, thanks for clearing that up.

The storm created by Obama and Sons broke last night. Reporters got attacked as they watched stores get looted. Down the street beauty shops, restaurants, and cars burned to the ground while in the air gunshots sounded. Many of the "protesters" brought their little children to join in the looting and there were flag burnings.

The reality is that Darren Wilson was attacked by Michael Brown who went for Wilson's gun. After Darren Wilson fended him off. Wilson chased Brown and Brown turned around to attack Wilson. Wilson in self defense shot Brown who died after.

A multiracial grand jury consisting of 3 black and 9 white members did not indict Wilson of any of the 5 charges.

Those that "protested" with violence last night have no life. They need to go back to school, get a job, and learn how to correctly raise children and maintain stable relationships.

"Obama and Sons "?

How well affiliated are you with the KKK? This quote alone reeks of bigotry.

I don't see it.

On the other hand, where is the racism in the police-involved shooting of Utahn Dillon Taylor:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all

I completely agree with your assessments in this thread. Almost no one out there is looking at actual evidence. It's all emotion and politics. And I have yet to see any evidence connecting this particular incident to racism, yet that's what it has become. If it's just because of the cop's race, then who's the racist?

Don't forget that he had already committed a strongarm theft at a local store to steal some Cirarellos and then when the cop saw him and he matched the description of the robber. he reached into the police car and attempted to disarm the officer.

Considering all that, when the officer was out of the car and Brown was going at the officer as several eye witnesses testified, if the officer didn't shoot there was a fairly good chance that Brown would take the firearm away from the cop. Whether or not he would have shot the cop is something we will never know, but it is a good possibility.

Yeah, I notice that people keep leaving this out. Michael wasn't just some innocent guy walking down the street. The cop shot him for a reason. I don't know if he meant to kill or whether he should have, but he had a reason.