Who said your name 3 times and brought you back?The original source was Dorian Johnson on the evening of the shooting in (I think) his first TV interview. That may have actually still been fairly early in the afternoon, not sure. I believe that interview was linked near the beginning of this thread by ezkl2230....yeah, Post #4.
People keep saying that Johnson changed his story, but I have yet to find anything substantially different in the grand jury testimony from what he said in the first interview concerning the sequence of events from first contact with Wilson forward, including Wilson's first words being something to the effect of, "Get the F on the sidewalk." (I think that is a verbatim quote, but if not, it's very close. The transcripts that I downloaded and that S&W645 linked to a few pages back are not searchable because they're just scans compiled into one big .pdf file. If I could search, I'd give you the page # and line #s where he said that, but it was fairly early in his ~175 pages of testimony if you want to go looking for it.)
You're absolutely right in everything you say here, and it's just another way of saying what I've been saying all along. It should've gone to trial because all the witnesses' testimony should've been examined by both prosecution and defense attorneys and let a jury of Wilson's (citizen, not cop and/or prosecutor) peers decide who's credible and who ain't. We know everything about Johnson's background and run-ins with the law, and absolutely nothing about any of the witnesses for Wilson. Were any of them cops? Did any of them have cop family members? If the witnesses saying it was a bad shoot weren't credible at trial, that would've been the reasonable doubt to acquit Wilson on. But a prosecutor going into the grand jury with the potential defendant's case in hand and ready to present, and then not even cross examining him or recommending an indictment, is total BS, it's a sham, it's political cover for a chicken-sh!t hack who couldn't stand the heat of his own job, and that sham is why every single question is left unanswered and untested, and why conflicts between witness testimony is left unresolved. Most importantly though, it's why questions and conflicts will never get one iota closer to being answered or resolved, at least not without another illegitimate process of the feds coming in to take another bite at the apple, because, as I've stuck like glue to throughout this mess, this never was a racial (or "civil rights") case, it's a fairly run-of-the-mill use of force case. People other than Michael Brown, Dorian Johnson or Darren Wilson made it racial. All I want (or wanted) to know is was the shooting justified or not. I do not believe that question has come close to being answered, and I think that sucks out loud.
Anyone who thinks justice was served by this case has got to be insane. Wilson, being part of the "justice" system, neither gave Brown justice nor got justice for himself. He got a pass from having to justify his government-sanctioned killing of a citizen by a prosecutor who never had any intention of getting an indictment out of the kangaroo court he was in charge of. I realize I'm swimming against the tide of opinion on this score, but I think this case is as significant a sign of the death of America as we once knew her as any other case one can use as an example. But around here, for the most part, if the grand jury's decision isn't being cheered and celebrated, the collective (and massive) feeling of "Oh well, c'est la vie" is palpable, which is an equally significant sig of the death of America I suppose. Oh well, c'est la vie.
Blues
Oh...crap it was "seemingly authentic". Sorry I didn't see that part. Like I said, I would have had the same response but it wouldn't have been apologizing for what a few officers who are nothing like the other 99% do. And the biggest reason why is because it would be as if I'm apologizing for Darren Wilson, which I wouldn't do because there was nothing racially motivated about what he did. He did absolutely nothing wrong.Link Removed
“He asked Devonte why he was crying. His response about his concerns regarding the level of police brutality towards young black kids was met with an unexpected and seemingly authentic (to Devonte), ‘Yes. *sigh* I know. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.’
...can't tell if you're just lazy or want to be ignorant...I guess I'll just ASSUME you're both.
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
First, If the law is still on the books after so many years, WHY? Sounds like grounds for this to be taken to a higher court, not the streets. I was looking to see what people on here were saying about the Eric Garner thing, but the only thread I found was right after the incident. This interesting post jumped out at me so I am highlighting a nugget of wisdom.Speaking of dumb and dumber, how about you and your LEO bf put your heads together and look up Missouri law 563.046 on legal uses of force by LEOs. After he reads it and tells you what it says, ask him if that law is constitutional. Or, you can save him the trouble of embarrassing himself in front of you and just refer him to Tennessee vs. Garner, a 1985 federal Supreme Court case that rendered TN's law, and all other states with similar laws on the books, unconstitutional. The pertinent part of that ruling as-regards the law the grand jurors were given the same day that Wilson testified goes like this:
MO's law has been unconstitutional since before Darren Wilson was born, and for the entirety of the Assistant DA's career as an attorney who cited it for the GJ.
One can legitimately argue whether Michael Brown was "nondangerous" as he was fleeing from Darren Wilson having just assaulted him, but one cannot argue that citing the unaltered-since-the-Garner-ruling MO law making any fleeing suspect legal to shoot, whether a legitimate threat or not, didn't enure to Wilson's benefit as the jurors deliberated.
'Course, I'm not sure any of the dumbs and dumbers around here understands the implications of a DA citing a law that has been ruled unconstitutional for nearly 30 years now, that GJ members took into their deliberations. Let me break it down for you. It's called "fixing" the process. It's called prosecutorial misconduct. It's called governmental corruption.
Blues
Hmmmmm.Your link also said "VIDEO," but I didn't see a video or link to one while I was there. It wasn't until gunnerbob posted the video that I understood the issues involved. I still don't know where the report that he sold "a" cigarette came from, but even if that's true, it's also true that selling "loose cigarettes" is against the law in NYC, maybe in the whole state, I don't know. If one doesn't want contact with cops, don't do things that are illegal. ...
You can never reason with stupidity.According to Pelosi we have a pandemic of cops killing black men. I am waiting for a ticker to start running at the bottom of the screen on MSNBC tallying them all up to incite more riots.
-
I am sorry, but like cops or not is anyone on here advocating attacking one?
-
Is anyone advocating physically resisting arrest, lawful or otherwise? I'm not talking about having a lucid conversation with the cop or being a strong advocate for your rights or against getting arrested. Once the cop , right or wrong, has uttered the phrase "you are under arrest" are you saying to fight it?
-
Is anyone advocating the riot inducing actions of the race baiters like Sharpton and Holder? What about members of the "peoples house" doing the hands-up BS even though that never happened?
-
Does anyone else see this as a disgruntled administration trying to get even? They tried the same thing with Trayvon Martin, but once the verdict was in they couldn't get anyone to riot. Why else would this administration be pushing local crime narratives at all? Does anyone actually see this as a civil rights violation based on race like they are trying to push? You think the country is going to pay attention to the lame-duck BS going on right now when they can watch riots and hate on TV?
-
Does anyone actually think that DW would have just given a white guy a break and let him go after he attacked him? That simple reasoning blows away all the racist hate speech being spewed, but that does not serve their agenda.
Oh...crap it was "seemingly authentic". Sorry I didn't see that part. Like I said, I would have had the same response but it wouldn't have been apologizing for what a few officers who are nothing like the other 99% do. And the biggest reason why is because it would be as if I'm apologizing for Darren Wilson, which I wouldn't do because there was nothing racially motivated about what he did. He did absolutely nothing wrong.
I choose to believe the ones who say he was charging the officer because autopsy results refute the idea that he was running away or had his hands up in surrender as the other "witnesses" have testified.
Oh...well for that matter then how does ANYBODY know what the autopsy determined? I mean we've all seen what the medical examiner has said but since we're not all medical examiners then it's completely meaningless.It's almost as if you think I care what your response would be...
Glad to see your a medical examiner now too...must have gotten your medical degree from post dispatch media University.
Who said your name 3 times and brought you back?
Oh...well for that matter then how does ANYBODY know what the autopsy determined? I mean we've all seen what the medical examiner has said but since we're not all medical examiners then it's completely meaningless.
Until December 31, 2016--Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
The last version was passed in 2014. Seems strange that a law change there would take over 2 years to go into effect. Particularly since it is only a gender neutral making law.Beginning January 1, 2017--Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, a law enforcement officer is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only:
(1) When deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he or she reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Hey Blues, did you notice that MO has two different versions of 563.046? There is a current version that expires 12/31/2016 and a new version that starts 1/1/2017. In both cases the defendant ( DW in this case ) "shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section."
Current version:
Well here's the Communist News Networks story and it basically states that witness' testimony that he was shot running away or shot while surrendering "tells a different story" than the autopsy.Yes we have, and no where did he say that brown surrendering or defending himself at the suv wasn't possible.
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
Well here's the Communist News Networks story and it basically states that witness' testimony that he was shot running away or shot while surrendering "tells a different story" than the autopsy.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/justice/ferguson-michael-brown-autopsy/?c=&page=3
But it doesn't matter cause none of us are medical examiners.
So as I said, you are not a medical examiner either so how would you know if I am "lying" if that is your mindset? I can find report after report of the same thing, just figured I'd post a news article who would be on the thug robber's side and still reported the autopsy refutes their claims.Oh I was wrong, you got your medical degree at Communist News Community College.
When a cop sets his mind, truth be damned, lie to get their results.
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
First, If the law is still on the books after so many years, WHY?
Sounds like grounds for this to be taken to a higher court, not the streets.
I was looking to see what people on here were saying about the Eric Garner thing, but the only thread I found was right after the incident. This interesting post jumped out at me so I am highlighting a nugget of wisdom.
<...snipped a selective quote from a post in which I went on to disavow and retract my previously-stated thought that the cops in the Eric Garner case acted within the law...>
Hmmmmm.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?