Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[xBiffx]

Yeah, that's a good idea...if you want all of St. Louis to burn.

Yeah, cause we shouldn't enforce laws for fear of the mob. That's a great idea. Welcome to the rule of man.

 

[Jaskalas]

Snitches get stitches? I'm wondering if this was a witness.

Report: Body Found Shot to Death, Set Fire Near Apartment Complex Where Michael Brown Died

 

[xBiffx]

It's also a law not to "leak" info during the grand jury, but I didn't see anyone charged for that...

How can you prove anything? How can you pin it on anyone?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

According to the media that received the leaks they were from anonymous federal sources.

 

[ivwshane]

I think folks tend to make the same mistake in this case that folks made with the George Zimmerman trial. The issue here was justice for Darren Wislon, not justice for Michael Brown. Likewise the the trial of George Zimmerman was not about justice for Martin. Neither Brown nor Martin were on trial or before a grand jury. The exoneration of Wilson and Zimmerman does not indict or convict Brown and Martin. They never had their day in court to offer a defense for their actions. What we know is that in the case of Zimmerman there was reasonable doubt concerning the charges against Zimmerman and in this case there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against Wilson. That's the extent of the judgements.

I absolutely agree, sadly this message is lost on most posters here. Just look at the comments, "the thug got what he deserved", "the evidence proved Wilson's innocents". This wasn't a trial it was an indictment which simply asks the question, is there enough evidence to bring this to a trial. A lack of evidence doesn't mean wilson didn't commit a crime nor does it mean brown did what he was accused of. It simply means that the evidence that was presented wasn't compelling enough to go to trial.

Now I'm not an expert on how grand jury's work but I was under the impression that the prosecutor was to supply the evidence for guilt with no defense to counter. If that's so I find it odd that the prosecutor would have multiple testimonies from officers that basically retold the incident according to Wilson's version of events (one of the testimonies even gave a closing speech about wilson being a good man). Is that normal?

 

[boomerang]

I hope the insurance takes care of all those business owners.

They're SOL. You've got to pay a ginormous premium to cover riots and civil disturbances. They may have...but I very highly doubt it.

Edit: Hmm, I guess I missed a whole page of posts. sactoking covered this already.

 

[ivwshane]

Snitches get stitches? I'm wondering if this was a witness.

Report: Body Found Shot to Death, Set Fire Near Apartment Complex Where Michael Brown Died

Why? Was the body of an officer that snitched on wilson?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yep, the butthurt is so strong in those who took the statements of the media tour gang as being what occurred hook, line, and sinker. Yet again it was shown the that media can fool more than a few people.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I absolutely agree, sadly this message is lost on most posters here. Just look at the comments, "the thug got what he deserved", "the evidence proved Wilson's innocents". This wasn't a trial it was an indictment which simply asks the question, is there enough evidence to bring this to a trial. A lack of evidence doesn't mean wilson didn't commit a crime nor does it mean brown did what he was accused of. It simply means that the evidence that was presented wasn't compelling enough to go to trial.

Now I'm not an expert on how grand jury's work but I was under the impression that the prosecutor was to supply the evidence for guilt with no defense to counter. If that's so I find it odd that the prosecutor would have multiple testimonies from officers that basically retold the incident according to Wilson's version of events (one of the testimonies even gave a closing speech about wilson being a good man). Is that normal?

That was to counter the now debunked testimony's of other witnesses. He stated his strategy was to put EVERYTHING on the table so that they couldn't be accused of covering up evidence.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why? Was the body of an officer that snitched on wilson?

Or one the mob murdered perhaps?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Or one the mob murdered perhaps?

Could have been the person caught describing what happened in the black Conseco video.

 

[LightPattern]

It was explained last night. Witnesses had their testimony checked for consistency and against the physical evidence. What withstood those tests remained and what did not was discarded. The result was that evidence weighed in favor of Wilson. If a hundred people say that something happened and ten do not, the number is irrelevant as facts are not things which change by poll. What matters is what remains after scrutiny.

Fully agree.

I really want to see media outlets held accountable for the burning rubble that has resulted from their broadcasts of fictional non-confirmed narratives.
Not by government action as government doesn't license our media... but what organizations exist whose certifications could matter to people?
"[FOX/MSNBC/other bullshit-pushing outlet] is reporting X, but I'll wait until Y covers it before taking it seriously."
This is even more important with the now constant 24-hour news cycle.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I absolutely agree, sadly this message is lost on most posters here. Just look at the comments, "the thug got what he deserved", "the evidence proved Wilson's innocents". This wasn't a trial it was an indictment which simply asks the question, is there enough evidence to bring this to a trial. A lack of evidence doesn't mean wilson didn't commit a crime nor does it mean brown did what he was accused of. It simply means that the evidence that was presented wasn't compelling enough to go to trial.

Now I'm not an expert on how grand jury's work but I was under the impression that the prosecutor was to supply the evidence for guilt with no defense to counter. If that's so I find it odd that the prosecutor would have multiple testimonies from officers that basically retold the incident according to Wilson's version of events (one of the testimonies even gave a closing speech about wilson being a good man). Is that normal?

And you missed the part where testimony was weighed against physical evidence. The result was that no grounds were found to pursue this further. Brown went after Wilson and there's no trial because no crime could be attributed to the officer. There wasn't one. So the people who don't care about that "burn the bitch down" and their fans ignore all that.

 

[Uppsala9496]

They're SOL. You've got to pay a ginormous premium to cover riots and civil disturbances. They may have...but I very highly doubt it.

Edit: Hmm, I guess I missed a whole page of posts. sactoking covered this already.

Commercial property insurance (or even a BOP) is most likely going to cover this.
Acts of war - not covered. Civil unrest and rioting, generally covered.
And there are no special premiums to cover this. It's part of the policy. And the insurance company can not call the business and attempt to extort additional premiums out of them knowing that some rioting/looting may occur.

 

[soundforbjt]

You people realize that Wilson's not completely in the clear yet, right?

 

[realibrad]

This is what happens when a society needs only faith to believe. People came to a judgement without evidence because they wanted to believe. No amount of evidence is going to make them think otherwise, because, they did not used evidence to get where they are.

 

[bshole]

Yeah, cause we shouldn't enforce laws for fear of the mob. That's a great idea. Welcome to the rule of man.

You really really really want to see some white people killed. That is the only logical reason to kick sand in the people who are already aggrieved. Not only are we not going to try the shooter..... we are going to prosecute any black person whose testimony did not completely absolve the white officer.

 

[Jaskalas]

Don't see why you're all incredulous over the proposition that it could be a witnesses laying shot, burnt, and very much dead near where the shooting occurred. The location and timing lead me to suspect as to who the victim is. You going to act like no one knows what their neighbor's witnesses testimony would be? This very topic linked a cell phone video of one guy. Maybe criminals held them to account. My speculation is not without reason.

As for the media... and facts. We live in an interesting age. With such widespread, constant communication... groups develop their own facts. Look at Republicans and Democrats. Prime example of there being two truths, depending on who you ask. People involved in this incident are no different.

 

[CZroe]

Heard a kid on the radio this morning who was backed into a corner regarding the evidence and resorted to saying that Wilson should be charged because he used his gun instead of a taser. First, did he even have a taser? Second, a moving (charging) target is hard enough to hit in the heat of things and he already knew that this guy would go straight for his gun. In that situation you simply can't afford to risk missing! A taser is a one-shot tool! THAT'S why he wouldn't use a taser, assuming one was even available.

 

[highland145]

Heard a kid on the radio this morning who was backed into a corner regarding the evidence and resorted to saying that Wilson should be charged because he used his gun instead of a taser. First, did he even have a taser? Second, a moving (charging) target is hard enough to hit in the heat of things and he already knew that this guy would go straight for his gun. In that situation you simply can't afford to risk missing! A taser is a one-shot tool! THAT'S why he wouldn't use a taser, assuming one was even available.

He did not have one per his testimony.

 

[xBiffx]

You people realize that Wilson's not completely in the clear yet, right?

He isn't going to jail for this. I'd say that's clear.

 

[xBiffx]

You really really really want to see some white people killed. That is the only logical reason to kick sand in the people who are already aggrieved. Not only are we not going to try the shooter..... we are going to prosecute any black person whose testimony did not completely absolve the white officer.

Not doing so sends the message that its ok to lie to investigators and hopefully get someone wrongfully accused of something. No thanks.

 

[Sunburn74]

"The physical and scientific evidence examined by the grand jury, combined with the witness statements, supported and substantiated by that physical evidence, tells the accurate and tragic story of what happened."

I for one am not shocked in the lack of an indictment, but am seriously disappointed. If you read what McCullogh says, he sounds like a defense lawyer who just won! You have to read twice to confirm that the above statement is coming from the side of the losing prosecution!

I think this CNN article very much sum's up why there is rioiting:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/opinion/reyes-ferguson-grand-jury/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

1) The prosecution had no real intent to seek an indictment (they could have just charged Wilson directly and skipped the grand jury entirely)
2) The prosecution had inherent and strong conflicts of interest and should have allowed an outside prosecutor to handle the case (his father was a police officer killed in a shootout with an African-American suspect. His brother, uncle and cousin served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked there for 20 years as a clerk)
3) Prosecutor's generally provide minimal evidence at grand juries, rather than swamping a jury with immense amount of evidence (the goal is simply to get the jury to agree that there is enough here to warrant a formal trial). Statements like "We will be presenting absolutely everything to this grand jury" directly conflict with basic strategy needed in a grand jury, which is to withhold conflicting evidence as best possible and to present evidence that best suggests a case may potentially exist. The very fact that there is conflicting evidence is generally grounds enough for a trial. To have not achieved an indictment in this case, really is more a sign of either incompetence or disinterest. I mean, there is a popular and iconic phrase amongst lawyers that says "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted.

It is very disappointing and to me it shows that there is a need to re-address conflicts of interest which may be present in the prosecution of police officers and judges.

 

[bshole]

Not doing so sends the message that its ok to lie to investigators and hopefully get someone wrongfully accused of something. No thanks.

Fair enough, so..... all the cops who testified against OJ Simpson in the trial in which he was aquitted should have been prosecuted for lying under oath.

In every case in which a black defendant is found innocent, any WHITE cop who testified against the defendant should AUTOMATICALLY be prosecuted for perjury. Every single fucking case and every single fucking white cop. Should be interesting.....

 

[schmuckley]

Q:Where was Mike Brown's mammy @ teaching him to not steal,rob and attack the police?
Obviously she did not do that.
The state raises monsters y'all.