patrick.net

humanity says

By the way, a couple of other observations.

One of the wounds on Browns arm was previously said to be from being shot from behind or with arms up.

The gun was unloaded, I think 12 (?) shots fired of which I believe 6 hit brown.

Now since the most likely misses would have occurred while brown was furthest away, it's not impossibly that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, as many witnesses said. People say that witnesses who said he was shot while running away are lying, and that their testimony is therefore worthless. This is not so clear. Maybe Wilson did fire at him and missed while he was running away.

It's even possible that Wilson missed on purpose when Brown was running away, telling him to stop, at which time he turned around and then ?

Now this is just odd conjecture on your part, and not at all supported by fact or testimony.

dodgerfanjohn says

It qualifies as fact when it's either

a. Supported by forensic evidence or

B. Contradicted only by people who are lying.

There are no witnesses who support Wilsons version who are lying.

Every witness who contradicted Wilsons version was lying as demonstrated by forensic evidence that showed brown was not shot in the back not was he shot with his hands raised.

You really need to dig into the testimony a bit more because you have some of it wrong. But, you've clearly shown that you don't know what a fact is....

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

It qualifies as fact when it's either

a. Supported by forensic evidence or

B. Contradicted only by people who are lying.

There are no witnesses who support Wilsons version who are lying.

Every witness who contradicted Wilsons version was lying as demonstrated by forensic evidence that showed brown was not shot in the back not was he shot with his hands raised.

You really need to dig into the testimony a bit more because you have some of it wrong. But, you've clearly shown that you don't know what a fact is....

No. You who disagree with the GJ decision are the one who has things wrong.

That you give credence to witnesses who lied is all anyone needs to hear.

dodgerfanjohn says

No. You who disagree with the GJ decision are the one who has things wrong.

Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.

One need not give credence to lying witnesses to have questions about the grand jury process in this case

tatupu70 says

Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.

Keep fighting the good fight, Tatupu.

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

No. You who disagree with the GJ decision are the one who has things wrong.

Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.

One need not give credence to lying witnesses to have questions about the grand jury process in this case

Rethink what you wrote. No insults from me this time even though your statement in context displays an extraordinary unfamiliarity with US law.

Exactly what crime are we charging Michael Brown with? Consider this carefully in light of the fact that the grand jury couldn't even bring charges for manslaughter. Consider that they had the exact same standard as a criminal preliminary trial. Consider what happens in a prelim hearing in the US. While I don't know the exact numbers, I'd take a not so large leap that 98% of cases that go to a preliminary hearing in US criminal felony cases are situations where the defendant is held to answer(that is it goes to trial). Also consider that some of the worst judges are kept doing preliminaries indefinitely(at least in California). The DA's that make the worst judges and the most left leaning individuals you can find. Its because since the standard is so low that a bad judge can't fuck it up(most of the time). So that was the standard the grand jury had.

In light of what I presume is information you were not aware of, I ask again, what crime are you charging Officer Wilson with?

I'll give you a starting point: You seem to believe that there is some magical third option here...that somehow there was some outcome possible other than a grand jury hearing or the DA declining to press charges against Officer Wilson. Theres not.

dodgerfanjohn says

Exactly what crime are we charging Michael Brown with? Consider this carefully in light of the fact that the grand jury couldn't even bring charges for manslaughter

That's my point. I don't want to charge him with a different crime, I want the prosecutor to act like a prosecutor and actually try for an indictment.

I'm familiar with how US law works which is why I know how a grand jury would work for anyone else accused of manslaughter. The prosecutor would not present any conflicting evidence, would not allow any other accused to testify for 4 hours, would not show unreliable witnesses.

The prosecutor's job is to get an indictment. Period.

Unfortunately, this prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor....

Impossible to rethink when he never thought about it the first time.

dodgerfanjohn says

Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.

One need not give credence to lying witnesses to have questions about the grand jury process in this case

Rethink what you wrote.

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

Exactly what crime are we charging Michael Brown with? Consider this carefully in light of the fact that the grand jury couldn't even bring charges for manslaughter

That's my point. I don't want to charge him with a different crime, I want the prosecutor to act like a prosecutor and actually try for an indictment.

I'm familiar with how US law works which is why I know how a grand jury would work for anyone else accused of manslaughter. The prosecutor would not present any conflicting evidence, would not allow any other accused to testify for 4 hours, would not show unreliable witnesses.

The prosecutor's job is to get an indictment. Period.

Unfortunately, this prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor....

You still don't get it. The case would never get charged. There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with. Even if he did, ANY judge at the preliminary hearing would find that Wilson could not be held to answer...because....tada....no crime had been committed.

Of course you will find this to be true when Eric Holder never files federal charges....same as George Zimmerman. And when a commie thug like Holder doesn't file charges....you truly know that there is nothing there.

That's the crux of it. tatupu is mad because the GJ procedure was not followed. He ignores the fact that this case should never have been taken to the GJ.
The only reason it occurred was to placate the mob, which was a mistake to begin with as it only enraged them further.
The evidence the prosecutor had that was backed up by forensics pointed to "No grand jury needed". His hand was forced by Holder and the feds.
He was not going to sacrifice his integrity by trying to get an indictment where he felt there was no forensics backed evidence, so he basically threw it to the GJ and said, "here, you decide"...

dodgerfanjohn says

You still don't get it. The case would never get charged.

There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...

It's always the minor leaguers that are the sacrificial lambs...

dodgerfanjohn says

You still don't get it. The case would never get charged. There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with. Even if he did, ANY judge at the preliminary hearing would find that Wilson could not be held to answer...because....tada....no crime had been committed.

Of course you will find this to be true when Eric Holder never files federal charges....same as George Zimmerman. And when a commie thug like Holder doesn't file charges....you truly know that there is nothing there.

I think you are confused about how the justice system works. Of course there was potential crime committed. An unarmed man was shot and killed. If you are arguing that the prosecutor shouldn't have gone for an indictment, that's a different discussion. All I can say is that many, many indictments have been returned with less.

SoftShell says

That's the crux of it. tatupu is mad because the GJ procedure was not followed. He ignores the fact that this case should never have been taken to the GJ.

I don't ignore it--it's a reasonable argument. But, once you decide to go to a grand jury, it shouldn't be a sham. That's my point.

SoftShell says

There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...

If you're going to troll me, you need to try a bit harder.

PCGyver says

dodgerfanjohn says

There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with

BS

There are crimes they could have charged Wilson with.

You are innocent until proven guilty. But in this country, for cops, you are innocent unless there is a video proving otherwise and then just maybe there will be a trial and you might be proven guilty.

Your statement borders on idiocy.

Google search any of these convicted cops and tell me which ones were caught on video:

William Ferguson LAPD
David Mack LAPD
Rafael Perez LAPD
James Sexton LA County Sheriffs

That's just off the top of my head.

No troll.
Just telling it like it is. You don't see wogboy or danny front and center, do you? If your case was so compelling where are the demo heavy hitters?

tatupu70 says

There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...

If you're going to troll me, you need to try a bit harder.

SoftShell says

No troll.

Just telling it like it is. You don't see wogboy or danny front and center, do you? If your case was so compelling where are the demo heavy hitters?

lol--why don't you stick to pointing out the "damning evidence" from other posters. Or making bad puns.

That's clearly your strong suit.

It was a sham to have the feds decide it needs to be taken to the grand jury to quell the riots, taking that decision out of the county prosecutor's hands. Left alone, the prosecutor would have never taken it to the GJ, thus making your sham (point) moot.

Since the feds forced it, Holder should have been the one front and center in front of the GJ presenting the evidence...but of course, realizing the obvious outcome given the dearth of evidence, he did not want his batting average affected either.

tatupu70 says

I don't ignore it--it's a reasonable argument. But, once you decide to go to a grand jury, it shouldn't be a sham. That's my point.

ps. my post above is "Damning Evidence"...

“Having read the transcripts of the grand jury, and having been a prosecutor for thirteen years, I don’t see how this case normally would even have been brought to the grand jury,” Giuliani said.
“This is the kind of case, had it not had the racial overtones and the national publicity, in which the prosecutor would have come to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to bring to the grand jury.”

http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/giuliani-to-holder-dont-make-federal-case-out-of-ferguson/

SoftShell says

ps. my post above is "Damning Evidence"...

No, it's your opinion. And you're entitled to it.

Do you disagree that indictments have been returned on less?

But according to YOU, 'evidence' is just 'opinion'...so my "damning evidence" comment is correct.

Tatupu said: Again--I think folks here have difficulty understating what a fact is. Officer Wilson's testimony is backed by some other witnesses and some of the forensic evidence. But his version is contradicted by several witnesses and some of the forensic evidence is not supportive of his version.

In any event, none of it qualifies as a fact.

http://patrick.net/?p=1248144&c=1156052#comment-1156052

tatupu70 says

SoftShell says

ps. my post above is "Damning Evidence"...

No, it's your opinion. And you're entitled to it.

No disagreement.

tatupu70 says

Do you disagree that indictments have been returned on less?

SoftShell says

But according to YOU, 'evidence' is just 'opinion'...so my "damning evidence" comment is correct.

Nope--that's not what I said. Some evidence is fact. Some is opinion. A witness observation is not a fact. An analysis of forensic evidence saying it's unlikely x happened is opinion.

Forensic evidence stating the victim was shot 5 times would be fact.

The libbies sent in their b team? What is that even supposed to mean?

I'm politically agnostic and could fart something more interesting then the group of squid arguing for an expansion of the govt and larger police state. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions to root on the police

Did you even read dodgertardjohn? The guy is likely retarded with his nonsense

If you are unable to grade the various levels of ignorance from the left, I can't help you.

errc says

The libbies sent in their b team? What is that even supposed to mean?

Nope.
The forensic evidence may show 5 bullet holes, but cannot account for richochets...he could have been shot 4 times, with one richochet causing two of the holes.
Everything is opinion.

tatupu70 says

Nope--that's not what I said. Some evidence is fact. Some is opinion. A witness observation is not a fact. An analysis of forensic evidence saying it's unlikely x happened is opinion.

Forensic evidence stating the victim was shot 5 times would be fact.

SoftShell says

Nope.

The forensic evidence may show 5 bullet holes, but cannot account for richochets...he could have been shot 4 times, with one richochet causing two of the holes.

Everything is opinion

I know you're being ridiculous, but if there were 5 bullets recovered from 5 bullet holes in a body, I would consider a statement that he was shot 5 times as a fact. But I understand your point. Are you happier with--it's a fact that Michael Brown is deceased?

errc says

The libbies sent in their b team? What is that even supposed to mean?

I'm politically agnostic and could fart something more interesting then the group of squid arguing for an expansion of the govt and larger police state. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions to root on the police

Did you even read dodgertardjohn? The guy is likely retarded with his nonsense

What SoftShell meant is that there are left leaning posters here at Pat.net that have the professional knowledge to address this thread, but are choosing not to. SoftShell is hypothesizing, probably correctly, that the reason these posters are not touching this thread is because there is no argument to be made...Officer Wilson did not commit a crime and the evidence backs that.

So all that is left is to grasp at straws. The B team...made up of protestors who have admitted they don't care what the evidence shows, MSNBHEE HAW, modern day carny barkers like Al Sharpton, and lower tier left wing PAtnet posters.

errc says

The libbies sent in their b team? What is that even supposed to mean?

I'm politically agnostic and could fart something more interesting then the group of squid arguing for an expansion of the govt and larger police state. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions to root on the police

Did you even read dodgertardjohn? The guy is likely retarded with his nonsense

Btw, where did ANYONE in this thread argue for an expansion of the police state?

The Michael Brown incident was about an officer acting in self defense. The only witnesses that contradicted that have been shown to be lying about the incident.

Now...THAT is my strong point!

tatupu70 says

I know you're being ridiculous,

One ricochet...one missed...still opinion, although a rather strong one...
unless you are saying "recovered from the body"....then it's a fact.
tatupu70 says

but if there were 5 bullets recovered from 5 bullet holes in a body, I would consider a statement that he was shot 5 times as a fact.

That depends on your religious beliefs, and your definition of "deceased"...

tatupu70 says

Are you happier with--it's a fact that Michael Brown is deceased?

Yeah....that.

dodgerfanjohn says

What SoftShell meant is that there are left leaning posters here at Pat.net that have the professional knowledge to address this thread, but are choosing not to. SoftShell is hypothesizing, probably correctly, that the reason these posters are not touching this thread is because there is no argument to be made...Officer Wilson did not commit a crime and the evidence backs that.

dodgerfanjohn says

What SoftShell meant is that there are left leaning posters here at Pat.net that have the professional knowledge to address this thread, but are choosing not to. SoftShell is hypothesizing, probably correctly, that the reason these posters are not touching this thread is because there is no argument to be made...Officer Wilson did not commit a crime and the evidence backs that.

So all that is left is to grasp at straws. The B team...made up of protestors who have admitted they don't care what the evidence shows, MSNBHEE HAW, modern day carny barkers like Al Sharpton, and lower tier left wing PAtnet posters.

I don't know if you're including me in this rant, but you are completely clueless. You're obviously incapable of nuance and lack the ability to understand the fundamental issue that I'm trying to make. If we allow DAs to act as pawns of the police, making no effort to do their job in front of a grand jury, aren't we one step closer to a police state?

How is it possible to move any closer to a police state

This is already a full blown police state. And there's no shortage of idiots lining up to support the end of freedom

Call it Crazy says

What the hell are you talking about? All the DA did was present witnesses, evidence and all types of other info to the GJ. That IS his job!!

No, that's not his job. His job is to get a conviction (or indictment in this case).

Call it Crazy says

If you have issues with the outcome, go contact those 12 people.

Not sure how many times I can state this. I DON'T have an issue with the outcome. I have an issue with the process.

If you think this is how DAs act for all criminals that are up for indictment, then I can't help you. A DAs job is to get an indictment and conviction. Period. It's not to do the defense attorney's job for him. And that's why I challenge you to find ANY other case where the accused is allowed to speak for 4 hours in front of a grand jury.

errc says

How is it possible to move any closer to a police state

This is already a full blown police state. And there's no shortage of idiots lining up to support the end of freedom

No one in their right mind should wish for a police state, but at the same time we must recognize that there are nefarious people out there who won't hesitate to murder if they can snatch a $100 - these 2 forces must be reconciled. We cannot have anarchy as long as this second category of people exists.