Ferguson riots

This topic contains 45 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  duxrule 4 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 45 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3813

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    There is enough ambiguity to warrant further proceedings.

    #3815

    jerry1949
    Spectator

    Further proceedings? It’s not over?

    @edselehr

    The way I figure it, 4 shots of 12 missed him, so it’s possible that 1 or more of those were from the back and missed, but I think that’s a stretch, but at best only a possibility, and nothing that could incriminate the officer.

    7 witnesses said MB charged the officer and only 1 of those said he fired upon MB from the back.

    I understand some witnesses changed their testimony because of conflicts with the results of tests, but I don’t think they are indicated on that chart.

    #3827

    Amus
    Participant

    F&B,

    Thank you for posting that comment from Anne Coulter.

    It reminded me about another important aspect of my post on “Conservative Christians”.

    You posted without comment so I’m left to believe that you are in agreement with her.

    Modern Conservatism is largely fueled by hatred.

    How do you, as a Christian justify the support for that level of hatred?

    If the past election has a story to tell it’s this;

    Conservatives do well when hatred is stoked, particularly among bigots.

    Democrats do poorly when their constituency is apathetic.

    #3830

    edselehr
    Participant

    F&B,

    You made an assured statement of fact in your post #3798, and now in post 3815 you are backpedaling a bit. I’m not sure I can trust anything *you* might say at this point. 🙂

    Five said he did not charge the police car or officer, and seven said he did – I find that inconclusive.

    Clearly he was facing the police officer when shot, but he may have been standing or simply walking (not “charging”) when he was shot. In fact, four of the five who said that Brown was not charging the officer did say he was facing the officer.

    I don’t see any slam-dunk conclusive account of the events revealed in these statements.

    #3832

    jr_tech
    Participant

    F&B said:
    “I understand some witnesses changed their testimony because of conflicts with the results of tests, but I don’t think they are indicated on that chart.”

    Look again at witness 12.14,16,41,44 and 48. *multiple* interviews, some changes on the “running away” issue. These witnesses may have known the test results, or simply remembered differently.

    Edselehr said:
    “I don’t see any slam-dunk conclusive account of the events revealed in these statements.”

    I agree, but things might well go differently for Wilson if there is a civil proceeding. I suspect that the city might be paying out some big$$$.

    #3834

    jerry1949
    Spectator

    His family seems eager to cash in on this. His mom is in trouble for stealing money from someone selling Michael brown merchandise.

    #3835

    edselehr
    Participant

    And we have to remember that this wasn’t the trial – this was simply to see if there was enough evidence to take it to trial. With the amount of discrepancy in these statements, and the inconclusiveness of the evidence and what it does or doesn’t mean, it seems clear that a trial would be warranted. Only in a public trial could the evidence be openly assessed. The Ferguson prosecutor basically turned this into a secret trial, which should offend even you, F&B.

    #3836

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    F&B is not offended, because the outcome supports his preconceived notions that black people are sub human mongrels and deserve to be treated as such.

    What I would like to hear is the account of Michael Brown. But we can’t because he was shot dead while being UNARMED.

    #3839

    jerry1949
    Spectator

    He made a good try to become armed, but you’ll continue to put your hands over your ears and sing “la la la.”

    He also had the capability and likely the intent of killing that cop, who needed an equalizer.

    Otherwise, you’re lying and trolling again.

    #3840

    jerry1949
    Spectator

    This would be a slam dunk acquittal if it went to trial.

    #3841

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    No reason to employ procedural tricks then.

    And yes, there is totally enough ambiguity here to proceed on. It is not a slam dunk at all.

    #3842

    jerry1949
    Spectator

    One circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The other circumstance is to prevent a suspected violent felon from escaping. The St. Louis County grand jury had to have decided that at least one of these applied — or both.

    The Ferguson Police Department has said that Brown was a suspect in a “strong-arm robbery” (which St. Louis County prosecutor McCulloch has said counts as robbery in the second degree, a felony) at a convenience store that occurred just before he was stopped by Wilson. Previously, officials had been inconsistent on whether Wilson actually knew about the robbery when he stopped Brown, although McCulloch said Monday that Wilson did know.

    If the grand jury was convinced that Wilson believed Brown to be a violent felon, the police officer would still only be able to claim that he was justified — if Brown was fleeing when Wilson fired at him.

    I found the above on vox regarding Missouri law.

    The officer would have been justified in shooting him even if fleeing. Besides the robbery felony, what about the felony of battery of a police officer?

    There would be too much reasonable doubt for him to be convicted, anyway. This shouldn’t even have gone to a grand jury. That was done to appease those wanted this to be a cause.

    #3846

    jerry1949
    Spectator

    You made an assured statement of fact in your post #3798, and now in post 3815 you are backpedaling a bit. I’m not sure I can trust anything *you* might say at this point.

    Five said he did not charge the police car or officer, and seven said he did – I find that inconclusive.

    It “might” be inconclusive if innocence had to e proven, but the accuser has the burden of proof.

    I did backpedal a little because I hadn’t considered that it was possible shots could have been fired from behind and that they missed, though in light of the law posted above, that could have been justified (not that I think that’s what happened).

    #3851

    duxrule
    Participant

    “He also had the capability and likely the intent of killing that cop, who needed an equalizer.”

    According to the cop and noone else.

    #3852

    duxrule
    Participant

    “It “might” be inconclusive if innocence had to e proven, but the accuser has the burden of proof.”

    The state is always the “accuser” in these situations. It’s pretty clear that the state had no intention of accusing anyone except the homicide victim in this case.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 45 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.