Politics On Politics.

[S8ET6]

Physical evidence supports the idea of a 6'6" 290+lb "hulk of a man" (wilson's description in quotes - not mine) being able to fit through the window of a police cruiser? In order to quickly reach past a 6'4" 240+ lbs man in an attempt to remove Wilson's holstered weapon? To shoot him with it?

Physical evidence supports that theory?

[Oreo931]

Physical evidence supports the idea of a 6'6" 290+lb "hulk of a man" (wilson's description in quotes - not mine) being able to fit through the window of a police cruiser? In order to quickly reach past a 6'4" 240+ lbs man in an attempt to remove Wilson's holstered weapon? To shoot him with it?

Physical evidence supports that theory?

Do you deny that Mike Brown had his hand(s) on Wilson's gun?

[Burn-E]

Because Brown's responsibility is a given as far as I'm concerned. I've never given him a pass on that question nor would I give anyone else a pass. When I was working with those kids in Boston I constantly reiterated that they were responsible for their actions, no one else was. That they should try to act rather than react. That it was better to walk away from trouble and submit to proper authority when you encounter it. That sometimes things aren't fair and you should stand up for yourself but you need to do it in a non-confrontational manner, especially when the other side has a weapon and is looking for any reason to use it.

I teach my own children the exact same rules. Only since they're little white girls with blond hair living in an upper middle class neighborhood and attending a well supported school that doesn't have metal detectors at the doors the likelihood of them ever seeing the side of a cop that Michael Brown probably saw on a regular basis is pretty slim.

But with that said, you're far less likely to have dead kids if we can get past the assumptions that lead to an officer pulling out his gun in the first place.

[Burn-E]

Darnell, there's DNA evidence that Brown put his hands on Wilson's revolver. Whether it was a defensive move or an effort to grab the weapon depends on whose testimony you accept.

There's also testimony from pretty much everyone that Brown was bent over into the SUV. Whether he reached in of his own accord or was pulled in by Wilson again depends on whose testimony you accept.

[Oreo931]

Because Brown's responsibility is a given as far as I'm concerned. I've never given him a pass on that question nor would I give anyone else a pass. When I was working with those kids in Boston I constantly reiterated that they were responsible for their actions, no one else was. That they should try to act rather than react. That it was better to walk away from trouble and submit to proper authority when you encounter it. That sometimes things aren't fair and you should stand up for yourself but you need to do it in a non-confrontational manner, especially when the other side has a weapon and is looking for any reason to use it.

Fair enough. And that's sound advice.

[S8ET6]

No. I don't.

I just think that another scenario just as likely to have happened is that Wilson called Brown to the car, Brown approached the car (maybe while mouthing off/maybe not), at some point Wilson un holstered his weapon and pointed it in Brown's direction as a means of intimidation, and Brown, fearing for his life, tried to disarm Wilson.

[Piston Slapper]

Darnell, there's DNA evidence that Brown put his hands on Wilson's revolver.

And right here is proof he doesn't know what he's talking about. There was no revolver. Wilson had a Sig Sauer and no backup gun.

[flyfishing3]

Gawd, you guys are ruining a good thread.

[Burn-E]

Mike, do you want to move the essential elements over to the a new thread titled: "Cops hate black people: debate"

"How race relations impacts police treatment of the public and public response?"

It was intentionally inflammatory Adam. I was trying out a typical Fox News or MSNBC style title. Clickbait only works if it incites a response with an extreme position.

And it did get a response so I guess it worked.

[Oreo931]

No. I don't.

I just think that another scenario just as likely to have happened is that Wilson called Brown to the car, Brown approached the car (maybe while mouthing off/maybe not), at some point Wilson un holstered his weapon and pointed it in Brown's direction as a means of intimidation, and Brown, fearing for his life, tried to disarm Wilson.

Ok, I have two questions for you.

First, is it your honest opinion that the scenario you gave is just as likely to have happened, given all of the physical evidence?

The physical evidence I'm referring to is: (1) Mike Brown's propensity for violence, as demonstrated by the security footage of him robbing a store; (2) the bruising around Wilson's face and neck; (3) the training that police officers receive which would instruct against pulling an individual into your police car; (4) the blood trail from Mike Brown and the placement of his body, showing that he was moving towards Wilson as he was being shot.

Second, how do you explain the fourth piece of evidence I referenced above?

[Burn-E]

You're making an assumption that Wilson followed his training. There's already evidence in place from his own testimony that he deviated from training.

[Oreo931]

You're making an assumption that Wilson followed his training. There's already evidence in place from his own testimony that he deviated from training.

What testimony?

[Fudge_Brownie]

In both cases please tell me you can see that a culture of mistrust and racism peppers the misunderstandings that evolved. Yes, Brown made some really bad decisions but what ignited this interaction?

I can absolutely see how racial history plays a role. And I don't need to visit the places you suggested to believe treatment is still not the same. I think we're on the same page, we both agree about race still playing too much a role in these interactions. I still don't see how that equates to suspicion of a crime being committed. It's like hate crimes in the sense that you're trying to prove what someone was thinking that very moment they committed a crime. I think what you're asking for is a default indictment for any white cop who shoots someone who isn't white based on suspicion that it was race related.

(3) the training that police officers receive which would instruct against pulling an individual into your police car;

As well as not putting yourself in a situation in which this large guy has control over you, seated and buckled in, window down.

[S8ET6]

Ok, I have two questions for you.

First, is it your honest opinion that the scenario you gave is just as likely to have happened, given all of the physical evidence?

The physical evidence I'm referring to is: (1) Mike Brown's propensity for violence, as demonstrated by the security footage of him robbing a store; (2) the bruising around Wilson's face and neck; (3) the training that police officers receive which would instruct against pulling an individual into your police car; (4) the blood trail from Mike Brown and the placement of his body, showing that he was moving towards Wilson as he was being shot.

Second, how do you explain the fourth piece of evidence I referenced above?

Honestly? OK...

1) Alleged. From the reports that I read, a 3rd party called to report what they "thought" was a robbery. By now, I would've expected that the store clerk or owner would have verified that it was a robbery.

2) Wilson's face is bruised - but not the extent that would support his claims of "feeling like a 5yo fighting Hulk Hogan". I would have expected much more significant bruising at the least.

3) I'm not suggesting that Wilson pulled Brown into the car. Remember, Wilson himself initially stated that he did not engage Brown about the incident at the store - he told him to get out of the street. I am suggesting that Wilson tried to display his weapon as a means of intimidation when he told him to get out of the street and he didn't expect Brown to react the way he did. This is key in my mind because it places some culpability upon Wilson

4) Again, I'm not disputing this fact either. But what I am saying is that the evidence doesn't dismiss testimony that Brown's arms weren't in a surrendering position nor does it indicate that Brown was still posing a threat to Wilson's life.

Now, since it appears that we have a dialog going, let me ask you:

Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest in having McCulloch lead the grand jury investigation?

Why was Wilson allowed to place his weapon into evidence himself and why wasn't his initial statements recorded?

Why didn't the ME take pictures or measurements at the crime scene?

Why was Wilson allowed to testify during the grand jury proceedings, but not be cross-examined?

Why, after a weeks worth of buildup over the news, did the announcement happen at night time?

[Burn-E]

I'll answer your last two questions Darnell:

4. As Hanlon's Razor states: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. You're not dealing with the brightest bulbs in humanity here. But they probably were looking to work the news cycle which is what any politically minded individual does.

3. And as for the grand jury proceedings that's generally how it works. You do not have a 6th amendment right to counsel in the proceedings nor do you have the right to cross examine witnesses. It is generally run by the prosecutor.