Burn-E Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Adam, you grew up in white bread Wilmington, DE. Where did you go to high school? AI DuPont? Mount Pleasant? Brandywine? It's OK, I spent 8 years of my youth into my teens in Wilmjngton too. In Chalfonte to be precise. I went to Concord HS. But 70% of the kids in my neighborhood all bailed on the public schools when they started desegregation in 1978. I wasn't one of them. So I spent years in inner city schools in some tougher parts of town. I wouldn't be surprised if 20% of the kids I went to school with wound up in the system. Here's why I bring that up. You and I grew up in neighborhoods where please and thank you and yes ma'am and utmost respect for cops is expected. And no cop would ever swear at us because that's not how you treat respectable upper middle class white boys - Christian or Jewish - even when they do something stupid. How many times did you have a run in with the cops that didn't involve you doing something stupid in a car? You're projecting your personal upbringing and cultural exposure into the picture. Almost everyone does this. My best friend in school was a black kid and into our teens we regularly compared how we were treated. We lived in the same neighborhood but police definitely treated him differently from me when we did encounter them. But how do the cops treat city kids? Why is there automatically tension when they roll up? I'm not excusing Brown nor am I saying he gets a pass for being a poor black kid in the city. You should be respectful of police officers no matter who you are. But you should also expect the same respect from cops and that often doesn't happen in the city / hood. Spark meet tinder and it's no surprise that tempers flare. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Alain, I'm with you. But I'm not following why that matters for this specific indictment. I can believe this guy was an absolute asshole, based on prior history. But that's strictly suspicion, assumption. I don't see how that leads to enough evidence of an indictment, nor a conviction. It seems the case boiled down to he-said she-said with a bunch of unreliable eye witnesses. I'm not sure we can decide this officer's fate on their testimony. And while the officer's testimony was fairly convincing and damning, it has so little value given the incentive he has to manipulate the truth.I think this does need to be used to fuel changes in procedure, nationally. But the trial seems like it'd be a waste of time given the lack of useful evidence. I realize there is physical evidence, but I think it can be used to support both side's stories. For those interested, statements from Dorian Johnson, Michael's friend who was present: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/26/366827836/ferguson-documents-what-michael-browns-friend-saw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 I don't think the testimony of either Johnson or Wilson is all that useful other than offering context. You'll never get the full truth from them - both have huge incentive to lie. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ET6 Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Does anyone know the physical distance between Wilson and Brown during the final confrontation? I havent read anything that indicated how close/far they were apart when the kill shot(s) happened. This would seem to be a critical piece of information because after being shot at least once, I could understand the "rage" Wilson said that Brown exhibited - but, if Brown was 50-100ft away from Wilson, then I fail to see how Wilson was in a life or death situation. If, on the other hand, Wilson was within arm's reach of Brown then I could fully understand Wilson emptying his weapon into Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oreo931 Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 There is physical evidence demonstrating that brown was running towards Wilson as he was being shot, and he ultimately landed on the ground roughly 8ft from where wilson was standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Yes, but did he represent a threat to Wilson? Because Wilson pursued him. Depending on the distance away from him, Brown would not have been a threat to Wilson even if he was moving toward him. We also have conflicting testimony as to whether Brown attempted to surrender before the fatal shot.http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/27/7298711/ferguson-grand-jury-mistake Problem is, that's not how McCulloch's team presented the case. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oreo931 Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Alain, I forgot you went to law school and practice law. I'll stop arguing with you now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 You know Adam, I almost did. Almost went the JD-MBA route when I started grad school but decided I wasn't really interested in the tedious nature of the practice. I have a few shelves of law books in my study because every time I visit a university I tend to pick up one or two volumes that catch my interest at the time. Police brutality and the case laws governing their ability to use force happens to be one of those areas of interest. I can hold my own in discussions with my friends who did pass the Bar. But I'm sure your experience exceeds mine. But this isn't about me. The question is whether Wilson was justified? Unfortunately we'll never know. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ET6 Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Alain, I forgot you went to law school and practice law. I'll stop arguing with you now. So, now it is a prerequisite that one must have gone to law school AND is a practicing lawyer in order to be able to argue this event?? That's interesting in an ironic sorta way, considering the amount of non-black men arguing the typical experience black men state they have on a regular basis with police. But I digress... As I said earlier, to me distance between the two is one of the key elements. If they were within arm's reach of each other during the altercation, then I could envision a scenerio where Wilson couldnt determine if Brown was armed, and shot to kill him. However, if they were in fact 25ft away from each other when the shooting started that would mean Wilson had clear site lines to determine if Brown was armed and if shooting was justifiable in his mind. And, even it were to have been deemed justifiable to start shooting at an unarmed person who is 25ft away and approaching you - that doesn't mean the same level of justification exist by the time the unarmed person is 8ft away from you and has been shot several times. And herein is the root issue that Alain nailed home earlier - there was no one there during the grand jury process to advocate for the victim. To question the point that I just made, or any other fact in this event. What? You said that the prosecutor was there... well, true. But there is a hand/glove relationship between the prosecution dept and the police department. So, by default, he's advocating for Wilson. So for the powers that be to say that a fair and impartial inquiry occurred without someone there who is questioning facts from the event on the victim's behalf (I.e. a trial)... well those sort of statements are nothing more than lip service to the victim's family and the black community as a whole. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ET6 Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 With all that having been said, my question now is: can the gran jury be re convened? I know about double jeopardy - but Wilson hasnt actually been tried. Could there ever be a scenerio under which Wilson is indicted and has to stand trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 The indictment doesn't really matter that much, what would bring him to trial is charges being filed, which can be done with or without an indictment. The main purpose of the grand jury indictment proceedings is to leave the decision of whether or not to indict him, and thus charge him, in the hands of the people rather than the state's attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ET6 Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 So its as simple as voting in a prosecutor who believes that Wilson should stand trial and then formally charging Wilson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oreo931 Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 You people are nuts. Mike Brown was NOT a victim. And re law degree, no, one is not required to engage in a discussion about the issue. But Alain is bringing up legal concepts and talking as though he's an expert in the area (like he does in all of the threads on this site ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 :lol: Ah Adam you're too funny. The Barrister has spoken so I guess that ends this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ET6 Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 You people are nuts. Mike Brown was NOT a victim. And re law degree, no, one is not required to engage in a discussion about the issue. But Alain is bringing up legal concepts and talking as though he's an expert in the area (like he does in all of the threads on this site ) Does one need to be formally recognized by an agency in order to be considered an expert in a subject matter area? (There are several members on VS with vast amounts of automotive knowledge/experience who aren't ASE certified - does that make them any less of a subject matter expert?) That's a rhetorical question - don't bother answering it because regardless of your answer to that question or whether he is recognized as a legal expert, Alain's points and questions are still valid. Not a victim? Hmmm... Sorry, I forgot that we were having a "legal" conversation - Let me amend that: link Please explain to me why Mike Brown doesn't meet the literal definition of the word "victim"... "You people ..." ?!?!? In such a racially charged topic/environment it might behoove you to avoid using "buzz words" like these if you want to be viewed as non-biased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts