Ferguson, MO

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

You don't HAVE to choose either testimony. There were several other witness testimonies and I would think all of the testimonies, no matter how contradictory, would be weighted along side the physical evidence. I don't understand why you want to take Johnsons testimony alone as the gospel.
Once again I ask this question- Wasn't Johnson (the friend) the one who initially told investigators and reporters that Wilson shot Brown in the back while Brown was running away? If so, that would really make me question the accuracy of his GJ testimony.

No, he wasn't. Tons of people said tons of stuff, but Johnson's story was consistent from the start. He told the same story to the papers that he told at the grand jury.

I'm not taking Johnson's testimony as "gospel." I'm taking it as the truth because having read both Johnson's testimony and Wilson's testimony, and having knowledge of the local police culture, and the local community, I found Johnson more credible.

Unfortunately, as you appear to be a member of law enforcement, I understand completely why you are defending Wilson.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Lol what's the matter? You pissed? I'd like to see you make me get off the internet, you piece of shit.

Unlike you I'm in control of my emotions so I don't get pissed off from Internet message boards but I was amused by your response. I replied to you how you replied to me. If you don't have anything of substance to say in regards to my posts then either ignor them or block me.

[TonyB06]

Pika2001,
With the prospect of a long prison sentence at stake, did Darren Wilson have any reason at all to possibly shade his version of events?

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Unlike you I'm in control of my emotions so I don't get pissed off from Internet message boards but I was amused by your response. I replied to you how you replied to me. If you don't have anything of substance to say in regards to my posts then either ignor them or block me.

Lol telling me to get the fuck off the internet, and you're in control of your emotions? I wasn't even posting to you to begin with. Then you replied to my original random post with unnecessary sarcasm. I replied to you how you replied to me. If YOU don't have anything of substance to say to me, you can do the same as you just asked me to do.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That shooter did give himself up to law enforcement, correct? Law enforcement would not shoot if he was no longer posing a threat to others and himself.

Law enforcement aren't supposed to shoot in retaliation or as payback. It is tempting.

None of us were there when Wilson killed Brown. But we do know he damn near emptied his clip on an unarmed man. I'm also amazed that he wiped away evidence and packed the murder weapon. A friend of mine in Nasville is a police officer, and he said if a gun is fired, the police officer who fired the gun is never to package his own weapon. A lot of shadiness in that testimony, to me. I also don't believe Wilson is out of hot water, yet.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That shooter did give himself up to law enforcement, correct? Law enforcement would not shoot if he was no longer posing a threat to others and himself.

Law enforcement aren't supposed to shoot in retaliation or as payback. It is tempting.

Yes, he gave himself up in the parking lot of the movie theater without incident.

Originally Posted by KDCat

No, he wasn't. Tons of people said tons of stuff, but Johnson's story was consistent from the start. He told the same story to the papers that he told at the grand jury.

I'm not taking Johnson's testimony as "gospel." I'm taking it as the truth because having read both Johnson's testimony and Wilson's testimony, and having knowledge of the local police culture, and the local community, I found Johnson more credible.

Unfortunately, as you appear to be a member of law enforcement, I understand completely why you are defending Wilson.

That's a bit unfair to say since you yourself have your own biases against local police culture. I will admit I am biased but to a very low extent. I know how the job is, therefore I'm willing to give an officer the benefit of the doubt he acted within the scope of his duties until proven otherwise. The grand jury's decision of no true bill has not given me that otherwise, so I still give him that benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by TonyB06

Pika2001,
With the prospect of a long prison sentence at stake, did Darren Wilson have any reason at all to possibly shade his version of events?

Are you asking if he had the motive to lie through his ass in order to get off? Of course, anyone facing possible criminal charges has that motive. I would think if he did lie in his incident report it would have been noticed during the hearings. Evidence and many other witness accounts would have conflicted with his statement of events.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Yes, he gave himself up in the parking lot of the movie theater without incident.

Yes.

Phrozen Sands, there are also Black people who are apprehended by police with no incident. That doesn't minimize the fact that the Black person is a suspected killer. It means that by the time law enforcement came in contact with the suspect, the suspect was not shooting anyone; not threatening to shoot anyone; and was willing to put down the weapon (or had already done so) without the need for force from law enforcement.

Phrozen Sands, if you haven't heard of Black people in your city or state who were stopped by police (with or without arrest) with no incident, you can do a Google search for news stories.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yes.

Phrozen Sands, there are also Black people who are apprehended by police with no incident. That doesn't minimize the fact that the Black person is a suspected killer. It means that by the time law enforcement came in contact with the suspect, the suspect was not shooting anyone; threatening to shoot anyone; and was willing to put down the weapon (or had already done so) without the need for force from law enforcement.

Phrozen Sands, if you haven't heard of Black people in your city or state who were stopped by police (with or without arrest) with no incident, you can do a Google search for news stories.

I'm not disagreeing here. I understand all of this. What I don't understand is why black men are killed by police more than 20 times more often than whites are. There's obviously something wrong with the system. I don't believe black lives are looked at as being equal in terms of comparing them to white lives. They never have been. Just my opinion on that issue. I'm still waiting for Wilson's conviction. Again, it's not over.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

None of us were there when Wilson killed Brown. But we do know he damn near emptied his clip on an unarmed man. I'm also amazed that he wiped away evidence and packed the murder weapon. A friend of mine in Nasville is a police officer, and he said if a gun is fired, the police officer who fired the gun is never to package his own weapon. A lot of shadiness in that testimony, to me. I also don't believe Wilson is out of hot water, yet.

I think we've established that none of us were there. Your attempted comparison is flawed because there IS evidence for why that white man was apprehended with no incident. That is to what I responded.

Comparisons are unnecessary but if people insist to make comparisons to express their outrage it is best to have accurate comparisons.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

What I don't understand is why black men are killed by police more than 20 times more often than whites are.

A few posts ago, I touched upon one correlate of that: the demeanor of some Black men.

Another correlate involves the disproportionate representation of Blacks in certain types of crime. That is correlated with socioeconomic status, physical and mental health disparities, sexual and reproductive health disparities, and inconsistent social policies.

Sure, bias and bigotry are a factor for some law enforcement but there are more safety nets against that than in the past (some law enforcement agencies are more conscientious because they are under increased scrutiny). Also, all humans have biases and bigotries. We are fine with these being utilized by law enforcement when it is to our benefit (such as officer discretion when not giving a traffic ticket) but we want that to suddenly disappear when there are potential negative outcomes. If only humans had such an "on/off" switch.

If people want the answer to unequivocally be "racial prejudice and individual racism" then NO. There are many factors that go into the structural, institutional, and individual dynamics of billions of people.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Are you asking if he had the motive to lie through his ass in order to get off? Of course, anyone facing possible criminal charges has that motive. I would think if he did lie in his incident report it would have been noticed during the hearings. Evidence and many other witness accounts would have conflicted with his statement of events.

This is my point, reading this stuff. It's hard to find a place where he was really challenged on his narrative of events. That's what got a lot of people shaking their heads.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

This is my point, reading this stuff. It's hard to find a place where he was really challenged on his narrative of events. That's what got a lot of people shaking their heads.

I'm not sure myself since I wasn't on the grand jury and I'm not an expert in the process but I did hear how the Brown family attorney was disappointed that he wasn't given the opportunity to challenge his testimony. I recall hearing that he was on the stand for three hours, but who was asking the questions, and if and how he was challenged I don't know. I will say that if I was sitting on the grand jury and I thought his testimony was false it would make my decision to indict much more easier.

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This is where the problem is, because people assume that in a high adrenalin situation where you've just been attacked and the person who attacked you tried to take your gun and is now charging toward you, you're going to stop and think "I'm going to shoot him in the knee". I think survival instinct causes anybody to just shoot and stop that person in any way possible. Shooting a moving target is also not going to result in shooting them in one specific body part. Brown was almost twice the weight of Wilson and significantly taller. There's no way Wilson would win a physical fight. Once Wilson was unconscious, Brown would have his gun and would then be armed.

Are you saying Wilson was considering what would happen if he fell unconscious and Brown got his gun? If high adrenaline and the heat of the situation kept Wilson from even thinking where he was going to aim to shoot, then it stands to reason he wasn't playing out possible situations in his head either.

Also, to what's in bold, officers are supposedly trained to assess and react in a calculated manner so they don't respond solely on "survival instinct." I know it's a difficult situation with an impossible amount of pressure but I would still expect the average person to completely lose their cool and shoot at whatever they can before I expect a highly trained officer to do the same. By this reasoning, Wilson may not have reacted according to a racial bias but still did not react as well as he could have.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

2. The public needs to know more about law enforcement training and the policies regarding use of "force", use of "deadly force", and firearm use.

I agree with everything you said but especially this. I spoke at length with a retired officer today about the Ferguson incident (we were just having lunch and it came up). The info he gave me about how officers are trained and the flaws in the system (as well as the strengths and rationale for how things are) were incredibly enlightening. I wish more people knew about it if for no other reason than you can't call for change if you don't understand why things are the way they are.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

It comes from the amount of ridiculous, unrealistic statements I've read about what Wilson should and/or should not have done. People lay blame on Wilson for defending himself but no one bats an eye about Brown going for Wilsons gun in the first place.

I see. I'm not sure what you've seen but I have also seen comments from numerous people who called him a "drugged up thug who deserved to die" and that's not okay either. However, the majority of comments I've seen say Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel and, were he still alive, desperately needed a lesson in how to respectfully interact with police. That being said, very few think there's enough evidence to say he deserved to die either. If the GJ saw evidence that said so, nobody (I know) heard it or read it in anything that was presented, a point at least 3 reporters made on the news here yesterday.

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

I was never trained to profile anyone, just the ones that broe the law.

Were/Are you a cop, Tom? I don't know much about you so forgive me if that's been posted somewhere.

[Psi U MC Vito]

While what little evidence I've seen points to a clean shoot, there was something up about the way this was handled. A decent prosecutor can usually get a GJ to indict a ham sandwich if he wants, because the prosecutor is the only person to present evidence. This prosecutor seems to have been playing the role of defense attorney as well.

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

This prosecutor seems to have been playing the role of defense attorney as well.

Agreed.