Who really still cares? The kid's family probably don't even care. He was a criminal who was eventually going to spend many years in prison. He is in a better place than jail now.
Who really still cares? The kid's family probably don't even care. He was a criminal who was eventually going to spend many years in prison. He is in a better place than jail now.
Look at the evidence wrote:
Forensics can back up him rushing like a football player because there was gun powder residue on his had that the officer shot. The only way that happens is if Brown was point blank (within 1-2 feet). Im just looking at the cold hard facts and not what opinionated people are saying about the case.
That's not what the autopsy said. It said...
The first wound was in the right hand and occurred at the patrol car as confirmed by skin tissue found on the car. It was the only close wound. The bullet entered the palm of the right hand at the base of the thumb and proceeded tangentially through skin and soft tissues for a distance of two inches exiting near to the wrist.
Police photographs taken before the first autopsy show black soot on skin and the microscopic sections show gunshot particulate matter under the skin that indicate that the gun was within inches of the hand when discharged. The other gunshot wounds show no such discharge residues.
All the evidence and all the testimony is online. You can read it yourself to find out what the grand jury heard. It's all here...
http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.htmldumb as a rock wrote:
Look at the evidence wrote:Forensics can back up him rushing like a football player because there was gun powder residue on his had that the officer shot. The only way that happens is if Brown was point blank (within 1-2 feet). Im just looking at the cold hard facts and not what opinionated people are saying about the case.
Hey retard, he got shot in the hand when he was at the car. The kill shots happen a great distance from the car. The mind is a terrible thing to waste. That's a cold hard fact.
Seriously, WTF? "look at the evidence", you need to get your "forensic evidence proves wilson was telling the truth" (which is doesn't prove) talking points mixed up: the 'he-was-shot-in-the-hand' slam dunk is supposed to PROVE (again, it doesn't) that this means Brown was grabbing for Wilson's gun in the car. Of course it COULD mean Wilson aimed the gun at Brown's head inside the car and Brown put his hand up to as a natural defense reaction, OR...that as they both struggled in the car, Wilson pulled the trigger near Brown's hand as Brown was grabbing Wilson's arm, etc. All it means for sure is: Brown was shot in the hand, and other evidence shows this was in the car. What led to the shot in the hand in the car.....that's up for debate. But it doesn't prove Brown was trying to grab Wilson's gun in order to disarm/hurt Wilson (maybe he grabbed at it as it was pointed as his chest, but again, we don't know), and it CERTAINLY doesn't prove that "Brown was charging Wilson like a football player."
Were you trolling, or just really confused?
Do people still care about this crap?
common sense, dude wrote:
unfair and unbalanced wrote:There were 2 WHITE construction workers who said Brown had his hands up but the Whitey chose not to believe them either. It was a fix from day one. The cracker DA didn't want an indictment so there is no way it was going to happen.
Link please. Did they testify?
Actual video of their reactions minutest after the shooting:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/White contractors, not from Ferguson, basically echoing Brown's buddy's testimony. This wasn't reported on Fox News? I'm shocked! Because these guys are are MUCH less credible than that bipolar, lying, sack of white trash that they DID have on repeatedly to report her "eyewitness testimony." Why did they talk to these guys? I am sure they would gone on? Seriously, ask yourself: why? I mean, Fox is "Fair and Balanced", right? And you wonder why (intelligent) people rip on Fox mercilessly.
Feeling like you might have rushed to judgement on Brown? Naaaah, he's a thug (i.e. african american), he deserved to die.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
This wasn't reported on Fox News? I'm shocked! Because these guys are are MUCH less credible than that bipolar, lying, sack of white trash that they DID have on repeatedly to report her "eyewitness testimony." .
My error: fox did not have her "on (one of their shows) repeatedly" but they did CITE HER TESTIMONY repeatedly as a defense of Wilson.
Browns brains came out of his head, but if you were shot in the head, I swear nothing would come out but $hit.You ignore the strong arm robbery. That makes him a thug by definition. Look it up. And you are race baiting again with this "he's a thug (i.e. African American). White people can be thugs too. But you want to focus on the race because it makes you feel better.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
common sense, dude wrote:Link please. Did they testify?
Actual video of their reactions minutest after the shooting:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/White contractors, not from Ferguson, basically echoing Brown's buddy's testimony. This wasn't reported on Fox News? I'm shocked! Because these guys are are MUCH less credible than that bipolar, lying, sack of white trash that they DID have on repeatedly to report her "eyewitness testimony." Why did they talk to these guys? I am sure they would gone on? Seriously, ask yourself: why? I mean, Fox is "Fair and Balanced", right? And you wonder why (intelligent) people rip on Fox mercilessly.
Feeling like you might have rushed to judgement on Brown? Naaaah, he's a thug (i.e. african american), he deserved to die.
Doesn't matter to them. What matters is a white person lied, so she is a racist, the prosecutor is a racist, and every LRC poster who posts anything to the contrary is a racist.
exthrower wrote:
Rufus Washington wrote:The prosecutor knew she was lying and they still allowed her to testify to the grand jury TWICE! She has lied before to the police. Fox news reported her testimony over and over and over again. She is the one who claimed Brown rushed toward the cop like a football player. Come to find out the bitch was not even there. OMG! Sean Hannity repeated this crap every day on his show for a week. The lady is an admitted racist.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1685885/key-ferguson-witness-sandra-mcelroy-faked-entire-testimony-had-lied-to-police-before-report-finds/Hey dummy....There were over 2 dozen witnesses....The prosecuter decided to put everything out there so no one would claim a coverup....If he had decided to only present certain witnesses you people would be screaming even louder...
get used to it.. wrote:
Browns brains came out of his head, but if you were shot in the head, I swear nothing would come out but $hit.
Yup, just the type of idiotic response apropos of nothing that expect from you. Yup, we're "used to it."
get used to it.. wrote:And you are race baiting again with this "he's a thug (i.e. African American). White people can be thugs too. But you want to focus on the race because it makes you feel better.
You are amazingly dishonest or at least self unaware. *I* am race baiting with the "thug" comment??? It's A-hole racists like you who ALWAYS and CONSTANTLY refer to black people as "thugs." Yes, it's code for: stupid criminal ape (or something like that, choose your epithet). You never (or virtually never) use it for a white person, and you f'n know it, you lying, ignorant clown. You use is specifically as a derogatory word for black people of low class (which I am sure in your opinion is 99% of blacks), whether or not you know they committed a crime
get used to it.. wrote:
Doesn't matter to them. What matters is a white person lied, so she is a racist, .........and every LRC poster who posts anything to the contrary is a racist.
She IS A RACIST you stupid buffoon! Are you denying this? Did you read her history of past racial slurs??
And yes, lots of idiots on this website like you who harp on every black crime they hear about in the news and insult blacks left and right BUT never bring up some horrendous crime by a white person are indeed racists. That is who you are, to your core. I'd "get used to it," because its appears you are not changing.
A coverup wasn't the really the issue. Actually, nearly the opposite - an excess of info was used to distort the process. The prosecutor purposely steered the grand jury away from indictment of Wilson by putting conflicting accounts, including 4 hours of unchallenged testimony from Wilson himself, in front of the grand jury. A grand jury is not a trial. It's only supposed to decide whether there is a simple probable cause to proceed to trial for a full hearing of facts from all sides. What the prosecutor did is highly unusual. If you were accused of killing a Ferguson cop in self-defense, don't expect to get any time in front of a grand jury to explain yourself. Wilson should have gone to trial.
exthrower wrote:
Hey dummy....There were over 2 dozen witnesses....The prosecuter decided to put everything out there so no one would claim a coverup....If he had decided to only present certain witnesses you people would be screaming even louder...
I am sure you are used to people saying you have $hit for brains. Yes, you are race baiting with the thug comment. I refer to anyone who gets what they want by force to be a thug, regardless of race. The word "ape" has never ever escaped my mouth when referencing a black person or black people. It certainly is on your mind though. You make all sorts of assumptions that are not true because you believe your thoughts to be infallible. Seriously, you have a mental disorder. Yesterday you had the balls to say something about me not being classy, then proceeded to say things you thought would be derogatory about my partner and I. But you were wrong. And talk about classless! The only thing I would ever have the nerve to say about your wife is she must be a saint for putting up with the likes of you.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
get used to it.. wrote:Browns brains came out of his head, but if you were shot in the head, I swear nothing would come out but $hit.
Yup, just the type of idiotic response apropos of nothing that expect from you. Yup, we're "used to it."
get used to it.. wrote:And you are race baiting again with this "he's a thug (i.e. African American). White people can be thugs too. But you want to focus on the race because it makes you feel better.
You are amazingly dishonest or at least self unaware. *I* am race baiting with the "thug" comment??? It's A-hole racists like you who ALWAYS and CONSTANTLY refer to black people as "thugs." Yes, it's code for: stupid criminal ape (or something like that, choose your epithet). You never (or virtually never) use it for a white person, and you f'n know it, you lying, ignorant clown. You use is specifically as a derogatory word for black people of low class (which I am sure in your opinion is 99% of blacks), whether or not you know they committed a crime
You could say that there was enough evidence to support going to trial. But the conflicting accounts really would have reasonable doubt a no brainer. The only thing going to trial would do is appease would be protestors...temporarily. There would still have been backlash after the not guilty verdict.
Hugh S. A. wrote:
A coverup wasn't the really the issue. Actually, nearly the opposite - an excess of info was used to distort the process. The prosecutor purposely steered the grand jury away from indictment of Wilson by putting conflicting accounts, including 4 hours of unchallenged testimony from Wilson himself, in front of the grand jury. A grand jury is not a trial. It's only supposed to decide whether there is a simple probable cause to proceed to trial for a full hearing of facts from all sides. What the prosecutor did is highly unusual. If you were accused of killing a Ferguson cop in self-defense, don't expect to get any time in front of a grand jury to explain yourself. Wilson should have gone to trial.
exthrower wrote:Hey dummy....There were over 2 dozen witnesses....The prosecuter decided to put everything out there so no one would claim a coverup....If he had decided to only present certain witnesses you people would be screaming even louder...
I have gotten used to your pea sized dinosaur brain. How have I insulted blacks left and right. I called Brown a thug. I said the cops did nothing wrong 3 of the 4 major shootings brought up recently. I say blacks and whites alike who are on welfare need to stop getting taken care of by the government.When have you posted about any of the crimes that black people are committing on whites? Oh you haven't? Well then you must be racist against whites people then. Dumbas$.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
get used to it.. wrote:Doesn't matter to them. What matters is a white person lied, so she is a racist, .........and every LRC poster who posts anything to the contrary is a racist.
She IS A RACIST you stupid buffoon! Are you denying this? Did you read her history of past racial slurs??
And yes, lots of idiots on this website like you who harp on every black crime they hear about in the news and insult blacks left and right BUT never bring up some horrendous crime by a white person are indeed racists. That is who you are, to your core. I'd "get used to it," because its appears you are not changing.
Agreed - there was enough evidence to support going to trial. That's the point. Mine anyway. Wilson might very well have been acquitted. Not sure if it would've been a no-brainer though. Obviously, it would depend on the witnesses and evidence, but at least the process would have been open. You seem to be suggesting Wilson's exoneration was a foregone conclusion, so why even bother with the process because the protestors would be mad in any case.You could say that there was enough evidence to support going to trial. But the conflicting accounts really would have reasonable doubt a no brainer. The only thing going to trial would do is appease would be protestors...temporarily. There would still have been backlash after the not guilty verdict.
Hugh S. A. wrote:
A coverup wasn't the really the issue. Actually, nearly the opposite - an excess of info was used to distort the process. The prosecutor purposely steered the grand jury away from indictment of Wilson by putting conflicting accounts, including 4 hours of unchallenged testimony from Wilson himself, in front of the grand jury. A grand jury is not a trial. It's only supposed to decide whether there is a simple probable cause to proceed to trial for a full hearing of facts from all sides. What the prosecutor did is highly unusual. If you were accused of killing a Ferguson cop in self-defense, don't expect to get any time in front of a grand jury to explain yourself. Wilson should have gone to trial.
exthrower wrote:Hey dummy....There were over 2 dozen witnesses....The prosecuter decided to put everything out there so no one would claim a coverup....If he had decided to only present certain witnesses you people would be screaming even louder...
get used to it.. wrote:
You could say that there was enough evidence to support going to trial. But the conflicting accounts really would have reasonable doubt a no brainer. The only thing going to trial would do is appease would be protestors...temporarily. There would still have been backlash after the not guilty verdict.
Is that why most grand juries have a 99% indictment rate, to appease would be protesters?
You indict and go to trial if there is any evidence to.
And there was plenty here to at least do that.
I agree there would be backlash after a not guilty verdict which is what I assume would have happened.
But to not even let it get that far appears unconscionable.
That video of the construction witnesses was new to me and pretty damning against the officer.
The lying witness doesn't look too good either.
These non-indictments just look like cover-ups and that's what's bringing the protests.
I don't like the two polarizing views that are coming from this:
Either - Cops are racist killers
Or - These cops cops are just doing what they have to and it's all the fault of the dead guys. All cops are good.
MOST cops are doing the right thing.
We should all be together on this point.
Some don't do the right thing and should be held accountable.
Then we can debate the individual situations.
Well, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. With differing accounts of testimony and even autopsy reports, I see no way this would not have been an acquittal. There have been comments on here from people claiming anyone who was on Wilson's side was a racist because there are accounts from people saying he had his hands up, he was running away, etc...but as this message board demonstrates, there is no love for cops in this world. There are whites who hate cops, whites who hate blacks, blacks who hate cops, etc... People seem to allude that a white person saying Wilson was at fault holds more credibility because they don't have the racial bias, but the anti-police sentiment is just as strong as the racial sentiment. I think for these reasons reasonable doubt would have been a no brainer, especially because they only needed 1 juror to have reasonable doubt.
Hugh S. A. wrote:
Agreed - there was enough evidence to support going to trial. That's the point. Mine anyway. Wilson might very well have been acquitted. Not sure if it would've been a no-brainer though. Obviously, it would depend on the witnesses and evidence, but at least the process would have been open. You seem to be suggesting Wilson's exoneration was a foregone conclusion, so why even bother with the process because the protestors would be mad in any case.
You could say that there was enough evidence to support going to trial. But the conflicting accounts really would have reasonable doubt a no brainer. The only thing going to trial would do is appease would be protestors...temporarily. There would still have been backlash after the not guilty verdict.
Hugh S. A. wrote:A coverup wasn't the really the issue. Actually, nearly the opposite - an excess of info was used to distort the process. The prosecutor purposely steered the grand jury away from indictment of Wilson by putting conflicting accounts, including 4 hours of unchallenged testimony from Wilson himself, in front of the grand jury. A grand jury is not a trial. It's only supposed to decide whether there is a simple probable cause to proceed to trial for a full hearing of facts from all sides. What the prosecutor did is highly unusual. If you were accused of killing a Ferguson cop in self-defense, don't expect to get any time in front of a grand jury to explain yourself. Wilson should have gone to trial.
To be fair, most grand jury cases are not polarizing enough to have protestors if the doesn't go to trial, but I agree with most of rest of what you said. See my earlier post about hate against cops. It is also hard to trust the testimony of white people that have bad attitudes toward cops. This MAY have been the case with the out of town workers. There is certainly enough cop hate on these boards to make it seem like this is possible.
L L wrote:
get used to it.. wrote:You could say that there was enough evidence to support going to trial. But the conflicting accounts really would have reasonable doubt a no brainer. The only thing going to trial would do is appease would be protestors...temporarily. There would still have been backlash after the not guilty verdict.
Is that why most grand juries have a 99% indictment rate, to appease would be protesters?
You indict and go to trial if there is any evidence to.
And there was plenty here to at least do that.
I agree there would be backlash after a not guilty verdict which is what I assume would have happened.
But to not even let it get that far appears unconscionable.
That video of the construction witnesses was new to me and pretty damning against the officer.
The lying witness doesn't look too good either.
These non-indictments just look like cover-ups and that's what's bringing the protests.
I don't like the two polarizing views that are coming from this:
Either - Cops are racist killers
Or - These cops cops are just doing what they have to and it's all the fault of the dead guys. All cops are good.
MOST cops are doing the right thing.
We should all be together on this point.
Some don't do the right thing and should be held accountable.
Then we can debate the individual situations.
Look, if you support Martin Brown, Travyon, etc, that means you are racist.
Democrats are all sexist and racist.
If they weren't then they might not be Republicans, but they wouldn't sexist/racist Democrats.
Democrats lie about everything, fake rape claims, always backing the criminals, always inciting riots and hate monger, always trying to get innocent people lynched or railroaded when all evidence points to their innocence.
Whatever, side the Democrats are on, you know the opposite is the side of truth and justice.
Do you mean acquittal at trial or a grand jury decision not to prosecute? The prosecution's burden of proof in a grand jury hearing is to show probable cause. The probable cause standard only requires a reasonable belief in the evidence presented by the prosecution. Moreover, there is no defense counsel presentation at a grand jury. It's a one sided process. It's not a trial. At trial, the prosecution has to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a tough standard, particularly with a police defendant. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean no doubt exists re: the defendant's guilt, but that no reasonable doubt is possible from the the evidence.
[quote]get used to it.. wrote:
Well, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. With differing accounts of testimony and even autopsy reports, I see no way this would not have been an acquittal.