Michael Brown

A customer reported it. If brown had lived- and the store refused to press charges- doesn't necessarily mean there won't be any charges pressed. With an eye witness account- this assault charge can be state vs. brown.

Then I guess we will be hearing about the indictment of State vs. Dorian Johnson any minute now?

There's a saying that a Prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to, but even with that easy of a threshold to overcome, no Prosecutor would bring such a lightweight case as that video shows if the "victim" doesn't care enough to swear out a complaint. Imagine a juror's perception of a customer of the "victim" being the only one to establish whatever crime Brown would've been charged with, while the person depicted being victimized in the video decided screw court, screw the Prosecutor, and screw the jurors, I'm goin' to work rather than go testify in court. That would never happen.

Honestly, if Wilson ever stands trial, I can't imagine how or why that video will ever be a part of it. The only way it might matter is if the defense team decides hanging Wilson's Chief out to dry by making him a double-liar is Wilson's best hope for an acquittal. In other words, the Chief was for the video matters before he said it didn't, so if they go back to his original story and say that Wilson heard the radio call that Chief said he knew nothing about, then the Chief loses all credibility, but the video comes in. Otherwise, what would it possibly have to do with the shooting? If Brown initiated the struggle or fight or went for Wilson's gun, all that matters is that he did it, not what he did before it. The video of Brown and Johnson has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not each individual round that Wilson fired was justified. Only Brown's actions at those 11 points in time can aid in determining the answer to that question.

Blues
 
I was speaking in regards to- your theory of no victim no crime. I highly doubt state vs. Johnson would happen- given the circumstances. But it sure doesn't need the store's "go ahead" - as the determining factor- as to whether or not they can press charges- ham sandwich or not.

If this goes to trial- and Wilson gets acquitted- would YOU be okay with it? Or would you just deem the grand jury as not "fair and objective" people (regarding your comment from this morning).

You're one of the few (or maybe two people)- who repeatedly, from day one- have been certain of Wilson's guilt- but you have as much information as the rest of us. You've never swayed from your position - despite & in addition to the trickle of new evidence released here and there.

I'm really doubting that you'd find any due process as legitimate if the end result falls in Wilson's favor.
 
It's interesting...When the side that is asking for confirmed information...real evidence...not opinions based on unvetted leaks...is the side that finds Wilson wrong and has held that view...interesting

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
And the video doesn't have anything to do with Wilson's initial interaction w brown- however it allows the grand jury to know of the mindset brown was in- in addition to his character.
 
It's interesting...When the side that is asking for confirmed information...real evidence...not opinions based on unvetted leaks...is the side that finds Wilson wrong and has held that view...interesting

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Leaks - from people fearful of giving their name? Understandable. But there are plenty of confirmed sources. And regardless- pending investigation will only use verified sources/evidence. And time will tell-
 
It's interesting...When the side that is asking for confirmed information...real evidence...not opinions based on unvetted leaks...is the side that finds Wilson wrong and has held that view...interesting

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Some people will never admit that "perhaps" they may have made a mistake.

If Wilson is found guilty that will not prove anything because there has been so much crap said and written about it all who knows what is true or not. And if he is found innocent watch how the ones who have already built the gallows act!
 
I was speaking in regards to- your theory of no victim no crime.

Which I spoke to. In practice, petty crimes are rarely prosecuted with an uncooperative victim - but it doesn't matter anyway. Brown is dead. You're off on another side-issue tangent.

If this goes to trial- and Wilson gets acquitted- would YOU be okay with it? Or would you just deem the grand jury as not "fair and objective" people (regarding your comment from this morning).

My comment this morning was in reference to the Grand Jury, not a trial jury. A trial jury has a much tougher standard to meet than a Grand Jury does. Beyond a reasonable doubt for the trial jury, and probable cause for the Grand Jury. Probable cause in this case might be...oh...I don't know....at least four eye-witnesses saying that Brown was either attempting to surrender or already injured so bad that he was falling to the ground when the kill shot(s?) were delivered. Many people have been convicted of 1st Degree Murder and gotten the death penalty on lesser evidence than that, so go ahead and pretend those four witnesses don't rise to the level of probable cause to indict if you want, but don't pretend that I was talking about a hypothetical trial jury when I said that.

You're one of the few (or maybe two people)- who repeatedly, from day one- have been certain of Wilson's guilt

And you, lady, are full of crap. I have been way more objective than certainly you have been. I have listened to what's been said by witnesses and described their accounts as a "problem" for Wilson. I have adjusted my willingness to accept Johnson's account at face value because of the release of information regarding lying in the past. I have talked about the legal issues that will be sussed out at trial and said that I doubt there even will be a trial. I have said *if* witness testimony holds up to scrutiny, and *if* Wilson is shown to have fired when Brown was trying to surrender, he should burn, and the fact that you or anyone else can't find it within yourselves to even agree with me on that statement says a helluva lot more about your lack of objectivity than it does about mine. If four eye-witnesses can't add up to probable cause to indict for the Grand Jury, you're damned skippy that would say to me that the Grand Jury is not populated by fair and objective people, but I haven't determined that Wilson is guilty. I've only determined that there's enough evidence to reach the probable cause standard, and that he should go to trial.

Meanwhile, you've dismissed witnesses based on "prejudice." You've accepted as fact one account from a radio talk-show caller and an as-yet unidentified, anonymous voice in the background of a video. Your self-described "prejudice" wouldn't even allow you to try to understand what one of the witnesses was saying, so he's dismissed from your overall evaluation of the case.

- but you have as much information as the rest of us. You've never swayed from your position - despite & in addition to the trickle of new evidence released here and there.

And again, you are full of crap. The only thing I haven't swayed from is trying to stick to the issues that would matter in a trial. You, not so much.

I'm really doubting that you'd find any due process as legitimate if the end result falls in Wilson's favor.

That depends entirely on how legitimately the investigation and trial is run, again, if there ever is a trial. There are people on this forum who think Zimmerman got away with murder. Nearly everyone in America thinks OJ Simpson got away with a double-murder. I think Johannes Mehserle got away with murdering Oscar Grant, Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli got away with murdering Kelly Thomas, and I think it's more likely than not that Byron Vassey will get away with murdering Keith Vidal. If you don't know anything about any of those people or their cases, that's understandable, but the fact is, people second-guess prosecutions all the time. In this case I'm less concerned about any potential jury than I am about the state being responsible enough to prosecute an employee of the state. But we'll see. If, after critical scrutiny of either live streaming or transcripts of a potential trial, I find fault with how it went, I've got as much right as you did to be critical of Jody Arias' not-guilty verdict to be critical of Wilson's. If it seems to me the trial was run fairly, I'll shrug my shoulders and forget about it, and whether or not you "doubt" me on that is of no concern to me.

Blues
 
Leaks - from people fearful of giving their name? Understandable. But there are plenty of confirmed sources. And regardless- pending investigation will only use verified sources/evidence. And time will tell-
Probably inadmissible. My bet is a judge calls it prejudicial and refuses to let a jury see it. But good luck finding a juror who hasn't seen it. Once again the news outlets have ruined any chance for impartial review of the case.
 
I expect the prosecutor will be grandstanding to further his or her career. The jury and the judge will fear the mob more than doing their job properly.

Wilson will be offered up as a sacrifice to keep the peace!
 
I expect the prosecutor will be grandstanding to further his or her career. The jury and the judge will fear the mob more than doing their job properly.

Wilson will be offered up as a sacrifice to keep the peace!

They tried that crap here in central Fl. with George Zimmerman and got it shoved up their azz
 
I expect the prosecutor will be grandstanding to further his or her career. The jury and the judge will fear the mob more than doing their job properly.

Wilson will be offered up as a sacrifice to keep the peace!

Really? Do you even know the prosecutor's name or anything else about him? If he holds and/or displays any biases, they would quite clearly be motivated by an extreme pro-cop bent, and there are questions circulating about his ability to overlook the racial overtones of this case since his father, a cop, was murdered in the line of duty by a black suspect. His roots in LE run deep. Even people who disagree with the notion that his deep family ties to LE and his dad being killed in the line of duty will necessarily prevent his objective handling of the case, acknowledge that his family and professional ties to law enforcement are such that to claim he'll be biased against the cop is ridiculous.

The only valid fear is that his "prosecution" will be biased in favor of a cop who, if those biases weren't present and acted upon, might be found guilty of some degree of unjustifiable homicide. I'm not saying he can't be objective. Only a trial and the way he presents the case will make me come to any conclusion on that score. But saying he'll be biased against the cop, or that he'll allow the cop to be some kind of sacrificial lamb, is not valid at all if you know the first thing about the guy.

FERGUSON, Mo. - The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown has deep family roots among police: his father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked for St. Louis' police department, and his father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect.
 
...Brown's state of mind doesn't matter a wit in determining whether or not the shooting was justified. Brown's actions count in determining Wilson's state of mind, but Brown's state of mind doesn't at all.

Blues
Think about what you wrote. Browns state of mind determined his actions when confronted by a cop, ergo, his state of mind is implicitly pertinent. Again, I am not on the jury. I know that IF Brown was in fear of being arrested for an aggressive crime, especially if it would affect his supposed future trade school opportunity, he would respond differently to a cop confronting him than if he had done nothing. Everything progressed from that initial confrontation. You are an intelligent man and you can't honestly deny that. I am not talking "admissible in court", I am talking about a reasonable person inferring meaning from evidence whether or not it is admissible in court.
 
Articles: The Fairytale of the Victimhood

...This hysteria is fed into at least once a year or so by unfortunate and yes, very bad events. Such situations that make our collective hearts bleed because of a perished life. However, we ignore all other crimes which were probably a great deal worse and focus on the one that fits the narrative -- victim and victimizer. We lose the ability to look at the situation as unusual or out of the ordinary and begin to fantasize about a world of “black male hunting”, “bigoted predator cops: or the “Kingdom of White Privilege”. It is easier that way, to have the story divided up into “good guys” and “bad guys”.
 
Rev. Jesse Peterson: What if White America Just Said 'No'?

This does not appear to be copyrighted, so I am including the entire text of Rev. Peterson's blog entry:

“He that spares his rod hates his son: but he that loves him chastens him early.” – Proverbs 13:24

As I watch the racial unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, I can’t help but compare the behavior of blacks in that city to that of spoiled rotten children.

Blacks have been rioting and fighting with police after the shooting death of a thug, Michael Brown. And white political and law enforcement leaders have given in to their tantrum like weak parents.

How did we get to the point of having Al “the Riot King” Sharpton as the White House point person for racial reconciliation – and having a racist attorney general like Eric Holder come to the rescue of Ferguson?

Foolish blacks jumped to false conclusions about the death of “gentle giant” Michael Brown. Protesters looted businesses and even targeting the same convenience store that Brown robbed.

Obama predictably weighed in, warning police about using excessive force. Surrendering to the political pressure, Gov. Jay Nixon, D-Mo., (one of the weakest white men I’ve seen!) pulled the Ferguson Police off the case, and placed Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson in charge.

Bad move.

Capt. Johnson’s sympathies are with the black thugs. His idea of policing was to march with protesters and order the police to stand down while black criminals roamed the streets looting.

When Gov. Nixon addressed the situation, blacks publicly berated him. Missouri’s Democrat State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal blasted him for being “disconnected” from the black community. She tweeted: “F— you” to the governor and called him a “coward” on national TV.

Angry protesters also shouted Nixon down during his press conference. A black man mocked Nixon for being soft-spoken, telling him, “Speak with your chest!” Nixon tried to appease the black mob and prematurely called for a “vigorous prosecution” of Officer Darren Wilson.

Obama gladly dispatched Eric Holder to Ferguson, but instead of calming racial tensions, Holder made matters worse.

Holder told the young protesters in Ferguson that he understood their distrust of police:

“I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over … ‘Let me search your car’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating this was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.”

Some of Holder’s past “greatest” hits:


  • As a new attorney general, he refused to prosecute baton-wielding members of the racist New Black Panther Party who were intimidating white voters in front of Philadelphia polls.
  • Holder said America is a “nation of cowards” when it comes to dealing with racism.
  • He has said that criticism of him and Obama is rooted in racism.
  • Holder blames racism for the high incarceration rate of black males.
  • He applied pressure on Florida prosecutors to bring charges against “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman, charges he knew would not stick.
  • Holder promotes the lie that voter ID laws are racist.

Parents know children throw tantrums when they don’t get their way. When parents give in to the unreasonable demands of a child, they’re reinforcing bad behavior. If the behavior is not corrected, they learn to intimidate to get what they want – until someone says “No!”

In Ferguson, we witnessed the result of what happens when black parents spoil their children. The children turn out to be welfare-pampered, morally crippled, racist black thugs. Now the white authorities have had to take over the “parenting,” but they too refuse to say, “No!”

Black Missouri State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed has threatened the white St. Louis prosecutor with more riots if he doesn’t indict. She stated, “If you should decide not to indict this police officer, the rioting we witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic. …”

She’s not the only one issuing threats.

Brown family attorney Daryl Parks was asked by Megyn Kelly on Fox News, “If the grand jury doesn’t indict, will you accept that?” Parks replied, “Not necessarily … they need to come down with an indictment.”

Michael Brown’s mother said she wants the white officer to receive the death penalty.

The grand jury was just convened and blacks are complaining that it’s too white. These people don’t want justice. They want racial vengeance!

But what would happen if Gov. Jay Nixon developed a spine and said “No” to black rioters?

If Nixon stood up for law-abiding citizens, he’d have self-respect and their gratitude.

If he waited for all the evidence to come out before convicting the white officer, the rule of law would prevail.

And what if whites said “No” and didn’t spare the rod of truth when they’re attacked as “racists”?

If whites said “No,” Sharpton and Holder would be out of business.

If whites said “No,” it would give misguided blacks a chance to examine their hearts and repent of their wicked ways.

If whites said “No,” their children would be inspired by their courage.

This kind of transformation is possible for America, but only “if …”
 
Howdy whodat,

-
If how I act (slamming the door on the cop when he tries to get out and confront me) provokes adverse reactions by the cop then it's on me, not the cop.
-
.

There isn't any proof that the door slamming incident happened.

If it would have happened the Ferguson PD would have already released it to the public.

The only thing the Ferguson PD has as to any wrongdoing that "might" have been done by Brown is the C-store security tape that has been carefully edited by the PD.

I've watched the tape and without audio and more footage of an undoctored tape it's impossible to tell what happened.

You, you see the tape and believe it's a strong arm robbery by a black thug because that's what YOU WANT to see because all blacks, especially young black males are thugs in your opinion.

The Ferguson PD released the tape to stir up simple minded bigots.

Pretty simple.

Paul
 
Think about what you wrote. Browns state of mind determined his actions when confronted by a cop, ergo, his state of mind is implicitly pertinent. Again, I am not on the jury. I know that IF Brown was in fear of being arrested for an aggressive crime, especially if it would affect his supposed future trade school opportunity, he would respond differently to a cop confronting him than if he had done nothing. Everything progressed from that initial confrontation. You are an intelligent man and you can't honestly deny that. I am not talking "admissible in court", I am talking about a reasonable person inferring meaning from evidence whether or not it is admissible in court.

And for the second time in a row of this circular argument you and others keep engaging in, I am only talking about what might happen in court. The only state of mind evidence that is relevant to a shooting in court, any shooting and any court, cop or otherwise, is the state of mind of the shooter, not the shooter's target. If this case goes to trial, in the eyes of the state, that will convert Brown from a simple "target" to a full-blown victim of the accused, Darren Wilson. A jury will decide if they codify Brown as the state's victim, and that's all I've focused on since the beginning.

Bottom line, I couldn't care any less what you think about Brown's state of mind, or what dismissals and twisting of others' words you had to engage in to come to your conclusions. I only care about what a jury will hear, and all I've said is that if the jury ever sees the surveillance video in the context of trying the facts of Michael Brown's state of mind, I will be stymied to explain how or why that might happen.

I thought about what I wrote before I wrote it. You should try actually reading and then thinking about what I wrote before you condescend with that kind of paternal scolding.

Let me guess: Wilson had a Gadsden Flag front tag on his patrol unit, so he's like your bff now.

Quit being so dad-gumbed obtuse.

Blues
 
Just a question how many folks posting tons of information here were actually there? The only thing I know is the bid Teddy Bear thug grabbed a shop owner by the neck while his star witness, assisted in the robbery. Then, folks not involved at all committed criminal acts by looting, robbing, burning. Peace, Love, Colt 45.
 
Just a question how many folks posting tons of information here were actually there? The only thing I know is the bid Teddy Bear thug grabbed a shop owner by the neck while his star witness, assisted in the robbery. Then, folks not involved at all committed criminal acts by looting, robbing, burning. Peace, Love, Colt 45.



Finally someone with some common sence
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,521
Messages
610,659
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top