Michael Brown

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.

We should just lump the information "you know" into that "tons of information" from someone who wasn't "actually there."

Finally someone with some common sence

How can one tell what is common sense...when he didn't have it to begin with?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 

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.

This case, if it goes to court, has already been decided, and any verdict returned is already tainted by the events there. can you even seat a jury with no knowledge of the events and no opinion? You have state senators and Governors calling for indictments without knowing all the facts.

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.

If it does go to court, time stamped surveillance video of the "victim" would not be admissible WHY?

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.

As should you. This thread is not "Michael Brown Trial". I am not asking what you believe would be admissible, I was asking what you believe. Period. Also that you consider what myself and others have written without applying the "rule of law" but common sense and gut feeling.

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.
Now who's "paternal and scolding? If it was a bad shoot, the cop should be under the prison. I cannot in good conscience imagine a white cop executing a black guy in broad daylight with witnesses all around him. Is that because he's a great guy? No, just one that doesn't want to go to prison with whatever people he put there. I am further pushed towards this opinion when Sharpton and Holder smell blood in the water and home in, just when it looks like contradictory stories are coming out. You know, can't let a good disaster go to waste.
 
This case, if it goes to court, has already been decided, and any verdict returned is already tainted by the events there.

As long as it stays in state/local jurisdiction, I do not agree. Familiarity with a given case does not necessarily equal "tainted." Both sides get to pick jurors and dismiss from the pool (almost) anyone who they believe can't/won't give a fair and objective hearing of their case. It ain't perfect, but that's how it's supposed to work.

And like I said before, I'm less concerned about finding an objective jury than I am of the system putting one of its own on trial and expecting that fact not to unfairly influence how the investigation/trial is conducted. In case you've never noticed, I am extremely skeptical of any government entity, especially the beyond corrupt "justice" system.

can you even seat a jury with no knowledge of the events and no opinion?

Probably not, but that's not the standard by which a jury is picked in any case. The standards are easy to understand, mandated that the jurors are instructed and acknowledge that they understand them, and it all boils down to applying the standards of benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant, and they only get that benefit if the doubt is reasonable according to the evidence they are presented at trial, not what they heard/read/watched on TV/concluded on their own before they ever got there.

You have state senators and Governors calling for indictments without knowing all the facts.

The Governor is a complete and total idiot pandering for votes. He did not call for an "indictment," he called for a "vigorous prosecution," which yeah, he is calling for something that requires conclusions based on not having all the facts.

If the state senator you're referring to said the same thing, then screw him/her too. But if they actually did call for Grand Jury indictment, all the facts aren't necessary to come to the conclusion that there's enough probable cause to let a jury decide "all the facts." I have no problem with people saying that since I've said it myself. As I said to Courtney recently, many people have been convicted of murder on much less evidence than four eye-witnesses. If one can't find probable cause in this case, then they're devoid of objectivity, so saying an indictment is appropriate isn't the same thing as saying what the Governor said.

If it does go to court, time stamped surveillance video of the "victim" would not be admissible WHY?

I don't know how many times or ways I can say it whodat - Michael Brown will not be on trial - Darren Wilson will. The only "value" that tape could conceivably have is for the defense to prejudice the jury against Michael Brown. The facts in question at trial will be the legal justifiability of each individual shot fired by Wilson, and only Brown's actions can justify the multiple volleys of rounds fired. If we can believe the Chief's last word on the subject, Wilson had no prior knowledge of the incident at the store. Only the actions of Brown during his interactions with Wilson will be allowed, or I guess I should say, "should be" allowed in, since the incident at the store had no bearing on his decision to draw his weapon, fire his weapon, or pause a couple of times between volleys and resume firing twice, and those actions of Wilson's are what the jury will be charged with deciding the legality/lack of legality of.

Instead of making me repeat over and over what I think about the admissibility of the store video, why don't you tell us how and why you think it's relevant for anything other than prejudicing the jury against the victim of the defendant who's on trial? The very notion turns the constitutional justice system on its head. Why is that so difficult to understand?

As should you. This thread is not "Michael Brown Trial". I am not asking what you believe would be admissible, I was asking what you believe. Period.

I believe I'm only interested in discussing the legal issues as they pertain to a fair trial under the Constitution of the United States of America. That's my perspective. Don't like it? Tough. What I believe doesn't matter a wit to you or to Wilson or to the bigger scheme of things. I believe I'll focus on how the system works, being critical when it doesn't work the way it's supposed to, and not letting a bunch of people who obviously don't care about the things I care about influence how or what I think about the whole thing.

Also that you consider what myself and others have written without applying the "rule of law" but common sense and gut feeling.

No.

What part of, "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" didn't you understand?

Now who's "paternal and scolding? If it was a bad shoot, the cop should be under the prison. I cannot in good conscience imagine a white cop executing a black guy in broad daylight with witnesses all around him.

Good grief man, do you really think "white cop/black victim" is the only thing in dispute here? I don't think that issue will even be raised in a potential trial. Maybe in pre-trial hearings and/or sidebars, but you can kiss that goodbye from ever being part of what the jury will hear about, which is as it should be.

Do you really think jurors will have to decide between "he executed him" or "he did not execute him?" How about the question of whether or not the shooting was justified? How about the question of whether the first 8 or 9 rounds might've been justified, but the last one or two maybe weren't? It is quite possible that everyone so anxious to paint Brown as a hardened criminal can be right about that, and still Wilson could be convicted on the basis of as little as one shot that he fired.

This is exactly why I don't care what you and the others think about it. When I read that stuff it just distracts and delays any realistic evaluation(s) of how a trial might go, which is all I'm interested in trying to do.

Is that because he's a great guy? No, just one that doesn't want to go to prison with whatever people he put there. I am further pushed towards this opinion when Sharpton and Holder smell blood in the water and home in, just when it looks like contradictory stories are coming out. You know, can't let a good disaster go to waste.

If this case ever gets anywhere near a federal court, I will scream from the mountaintops against it. Sharpton is an ex-coke-sellin' pimp and former(?) FBI informant, the latter of which should disqualify him from having any credibility in the communities he hustles. But the town of Ferguson and its citizens will not be on trial here. Darren Wilson will, and at the top of the list of accusations that he'll have to defend against will be about copper-colored objects that he fired into Michael Brown, not anything having to do with black or white. More extraneous distractions.

Blues
 
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
Exactly. His state of mind affects his actions and a jury must determine if those actions were reasonable given the situation he was faced with. They must put themselves in his state of mind.
 
Exactly. His state of mind affects his actions and a jury must determine if those actions were reasonable given the situation he was faced with. They must put themselves in his state of mind.

Or, if they can't reasonably get there, they must convict.
 
This does not appear to be copyrighted, so I am including the entire text of Rev. Peterson's blog entry:
I have been donating to BOND since heard about them. The man and his mission are making a difference. He trains, supports and pushes the INDIVIDUAL responsibility not the poor black victimization a lot of the community feeds.
Please look into his work, he's worthy of support. BOND | Rebuilding The Family By Rebuilding The Man
 

I think the cops messed up. I'd bet you a dollar his "retirement" wasn't entirely his idea. My opinion is that he was probably given the ultimatum of "retire or you're fired, we don't need this right now", or something to that effect. IF that was the case, I don't think they should have given him that option. Instead of firing a guy that couldn't control himself, they almost make him look like the good remorseful guy that couldn't stand to be associated with the rest of the jack-booted thugs. He should have been fired, and the Chief should have gotten on the podium and said "we do not accept actions like his from our officers".
 
I agree. I think the chief was too much of a wimp- perhaps didn't want to deal with backlash from his fellow officers for firing the guy bc it'd mean losing Alber's pension? But no doubt on my mind- it was: either u resign or you're fired.
 
Link Removed

Note the words on the plywood probably say something along the lines of "thank you for your love and support"

I wonder if the owners wrote that. If so- goes to show how much fear they are living in. For putting up a sign like that - after their store was looted and destroyed in its entirety.
 
They have a code. Unwritten, but a code. Thick or thin, they will protect thier own as long as it doesnt mean thier own skin. Not always a bad thing.
 
They have a code. Unwritten, but a code. Thick or thin, they will protect thier own as long as it doesnt mean thier own skin. Not always a bad thing.
But usually.

I find it increasingly difficult to tell the difference between local police and the Crips, Bloods or any other private sector gang.

Look at the ostentatious shows of support by his fellow Chicago cops for Anthony Abbate, the 300lb. drunken coward who stomped a 100lb. barmaid who cut him off and tried to stop him from pouring his own drinks from behind the bar. Out of that case came a judicial determination that the Chicago PD maintains a "blue wall of silence".

The police are the foremost exponents of the "stop snitching" culture in America today.
 

He'll likely still be back on the street shortly, maybe even back in St. Ann after the union fights for his job. Maybe more than a couple of months, but if the union doesn't back him, there is nothing preventing him from going elsewhere to be a paid psychopath. As I said in the same post you replied to....

He should be getting his sensitivity training and psychological evaluations in prison, as that tape clearly shows a terroristic threat under color of law being made. That video is clear evidence of a crime being committed, and you call his suspension a "start" towards positive change? Do you honestly even believe that?

And now being allowed to retire is a good start? He's getting away with a crime. Actually, he's gotten away with a crime.

Blues
 
More on the criminal history of the "big teddy bear," including a previous second degree murder charge….

Link Removed
 
More on the criminal history of the "big teddy bear," including a previous second degree murder charge….

Link Removed

It only says that they're in the process of attempting to unseal records- until then- it's only heresay and unverified. I'm following Johnson's suit- and hope he gets them unsealed. From the looks of the strong arm robbery- it didn't seem like Brown had "first day jitters" on that job.
 
What do you all think of this local (to ferguson) police chief's method of what he considers demilitarizing his PD in a response to the riots-

In short- he got rid of blacks cars, the swat van, and anything that makes his officers look like "ninjas."

North County municipal police chief scales back on show of force | FOX2now.com
It isn't that they may not need some of the equipment but it sure is a case of the police knowing when to use it and when not to take on the Ninja look. The "it's a dangerous job" bit has been way overplayed.

The 10 Deadliest Jobs:

1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers

Note that being a LEO doesn't show up in that list from 2012.
 
I think Ferguson has been forgotten faster than Martin...

2 more months no one will care.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,527
Messages
610,761
Members
74,965
Latest member
Roosince1911
Back
Top