Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

If we wait on people like you to decide, there will never be a right case.

Bullshit. The Staten Island case seems a lot more viable to me than Michael Brown's. I fully support reducing unwarranted police violence/police brutality. That being the case, I don't support using an ambiguous (at best) case like Michael Brown's as the poster child for a movement.

Similarly, the (fictitious) Rolling Stone article on gang rape at UVa (or the Duke lacrosse case) may have done more harm than good when it comes to campus sexual assault.

[Gusjay Gupta]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It seems to me that you're mixing up the right of a suspect to testify before a grand jury with the right of a DA to call him as a witness. As noted in the Federal Jury grand jury instructions linked above:

It is the responsibility of the grand jury to weigh the evidence presented to it in order to determine whether this evidence, usually without any explanation being offered by the accused ...

Unfortunately, there was nothing usual about this case. There was rioting, looting and gunfire in the streets due to the "hands up, don't shoot" meme created by people who didn't see the shooting (read the article) and subsequently also offered up by "witnesses" to the grand jury.

Like it or not, given the evidence in this case, the DA had two choices - not bringing it to the grand jury (as he didn't believe that there was probable cause) or bringing it before the grand jury as he did due to public pressure. I'm guessing you'd be bitching even louder if he did the former rather than the latter.

I'm mixing up nothing. But you certainly don't seem to have an understanding of what Scalia said. Do you know what "exculpatory" means? Seriously.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta

I'm mixing up nothing. But you certainly don't seem to have an understanding of what Scalia said. Do you know what "exculpatory" means? Seriously.

I do indeed. Scalia said they don't have a right to testify or to exculpatory evidence. Scalia didn't say that these are not allowed in a grand jury process (nor does the instructions to Federal Grand juries nor the analysis of the law professor and Federal Judge I linked to.) The right of a defendant and the discretion of the DA are two different things. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Bullshit. The Staten Island case seems a lot more viable to me than Michael Brown's. I fully support reducing unwarranted police violence/police brutality.

I see.

Is that why you made a total of two, count em two posts out of 166 in the thread about the Garner chocking, neither of them terribly critical of the grand jury decision, and yet in the threads about Browns shooting you made too many to count, and virtually all of them in support of Grand Jury.

Oh yeah Finn, I checked your record and it's not hard to see where your priorities are. You are fully in support of the good old status quo.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I see.

Is that why you made a total of two, count em two posts out of 166 in the thread about the Garner chocking, neither of them terribly critical of the grand jury decision, and yet in the threads about Browns shooting you made too many to count, and virtually all of them in support of Grand Jury.

Oh yeah Finn, I checked your record and it's not hard to see where your priorities are. You are fully in support of the good old status quo.

To me, the video of the Staten Island case makes any comment of mine superfluous. It stands on its own merit. I said absolutely nothing in support of the cops there. Not once.

That said, I'm not willing to conflate the two cases or to say that the Ferguson case demonstrates anything with regard to police brutality. It just demonstrates the willingness of people to jump to conclusions to support their agenda/ideology. From the beginning of the Ferguson mess, I said I would prefer to wait until the grand jury was finished its work. Having read their work in detail, I think they got it right.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by finnbow

To me, the video of the Staten Island case makes any comment of mine superfluous. It stands on its own merit. I said absolutely nothing in support of the cops there. Not once.

Congratulations Finn!

You get the Edmund Burke award!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Or for dumb asses to buy into a silly meme without a shred of evidence to build their movement or support a cause.

It brings to mind Dubya's WMD claims.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Or for dumb asses to buy into a silly meme without a shred of evidence to build their movement or support a cause.

It brings to mind Dubya's WMD claims.

Hey, careful. I totally bought into the uranium yellow cake.
Come to think of it, you want us all to believe Wilson like the nation believed Dubya. Wierd logic if you ask me.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Hey, careful. I totally bought into the uranium yellow cake.

You're being sarcastic I hope.

[sheltiedave]

Hey, let us take a second look at the narrative that Wilson did not shoot at Brown as he was fleeing.

The first evidence that Brown was shot at from behind is the bullet fired by Wilson that missed everything and lodged, without deformation, into a second story apartment wall by a entry into the apartment on the RIGHT, well along the pathway that Brown tried to flee.

The second contentious evidence is the bullet that struck Brown in the right arm and fractured his ulna as he fled.

SHOT COULD HAVE COME FROM BACK

During his announcement of the grand jury finding of no true bill, McCulloch sharply criticized the inconsistent eyewitness accounts. He called out one particular claim that Brown was shot in the back as he was running away.

“However once the autopsy findings were released showing that Michael Brown had not sustained any wound to the back of his body, no additional witnesses made such a claim.” JUST DORIAN JOHNSON, THE WITNESS CLOSEST TO THE DEADLY SCENE.

But there was no evidence that Wilson did not fire at Brown’s back and miss. And, in fact, one expert testified one of the wounds could have come while Brown was running away.

The forensic pathologist for the federal government, a doctor based at Dover Air Force Base, testified that one gunshot on Brown’s body could have come from behind. It was the shot to his right forearm that fractured the ulna, one of the long bones in the forearm.

“So if you are asking me could a shot from his backside produce that, I say yes,” the pathologist said. “Because as you are running, if your arm is down like this, that surface, that very surface of your arm is exposed posteriorly. So a bullet coming from behind you could cause that injury.”

Asked if it could have come from the front side, the pathologist said, “Yes, depending on how your arm is.”