An inconvenient truth

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    bells I ask because I do not know - what was this whole deal with Wilson, if not a trial?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Not sure if you already know this but you get to hear it anyway!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If you highlight the entire text and right click and cut or delete the selected text, and then click on the disk icon in the text tools above and delete draft, presto, it's gone!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,511
    The issue here is because the prosecutor had no intention of indicting him. So the grand jury was treated like a trial, contradictory evidence was presented to the grand jury with no one to question said evidence, they put Wilson on the stand, coached and coaxed him to present his version of events which is unheard of (even Scalia noted many years ago that the accused is not really meant to take the stand because a grand jury hearing is not to determine his innocence but whether there is enough to go to a trial), the jury were literally told to ignore the law and ignore common law if not ignoring it meant they would have to indict. And if that was not bad enough, the prosecutor did not instruct the jury to indict, which it is meant to.

    And the evidence does not fit his actual testimony. At all. From the marks on his face where he said he was in the life and death struggle in the car, to his own testimony about how Brown was running at him after he chased him in the street when Brown ran away from him when he discharged his weapon twice in the car, to the fact that Brown turned around after having run away from him after he shot at him... Why would someone who is running away from someone with a gun, turn around and come back towards the guy holding the gun and had shot at you? That doesn't make sense. The only way that could make sense is if he shot at Brown while Brown was running away and Brown stopped running, and walked back towards him slowly (which is what Capracus is now saying must have happened)... But if Brown did that, then Brown was no longer the threat that Wilson testified he was when Wilson testified that he shot at Brown because Brown ran at him and charged him. If Brown was walking slowly towards him, then why didn't he use mace (after all, he testified Brown was 15 feet away from him) instead of unloading his gun into him? Wilson testified that Brown ran away from him, and by the image of the scene provided by Capracus, Brown was running fast enough away from him that his sandals fell off his feet. And he kept running well after that for a fair distance. So why would he stop, turn around and run back at Wilson? He ran away from Wilson when Wilson opened fire in his car. Wilson still had his gun in his hand when he gave chase, why would Brown stop, turn around and run back at Wilson? It makes no sense.

    And how and why does Wilson testify that Brown was running at him and not stopping running at him and he felt so threatened by this that he shot at him multiple times, when the physical evidence does not support Brown running?

    These questions would have been answered in a trial. Because right now, the testimony that Wilson gave does not actually fit the physical evidence at all.

    Had the prosecutor been doing his job, had he not been protecting Wilson as he openly did, he'd have asked the jury to indict because those questions exist. Instead, he told the grand jury to ignore the law completely, to ignore those questions because to try to answer those questions and the contradictions which exist in the law and common law which was discussed in previous posts, if it meant that it would result in an indictment and he did not ask them to indict. And had the prosecutor been doing his job, then the grand jury hearing would not have ended up being like a trial, with the jury acting like the prosecutor and the prosecutor acting as though he was Wilson's defense lawyer.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    To you, everything that is, is not because it doesn't fit with your expectations/ preconceived notions of what should be...What is has been clearly presented, but you stubbornly refuse to accept that...Consequently, you are doing they very thing you claim to be against i.e. acting as a judge, jury, and executioner--towards individuals and situations alike. Self Righteousness and Hypocrisy go hand in hand.
    Good day.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quixotic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills
     
    Nutter likes this.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,471
    I would not at this time take issue with our colleague's response, but wanted to pitch in a couple of pennies for my own part:

    • The normal process for a grand jury investigation is a prosecutor presenting evidence of why this or that subject should be indicted. At no time in any grand jury proceeding is a defendant's lawyer present to argue on behalf of said client. What McCulloch did was perform a grand jury investigation while acting, in many people's opinons, as an "attorney for the defendant". That is, he went to the grand jury and essentially pitched why the officer should not be indicted. Normally, defendants don't have such representation in a grand jury. In a trial, there at least would have been a lawyer present who would, in front of a jury, have challenged the officer's testimony and, I promise you, who would have thrown a holy fit when prosecutors tried to inform the jury according to an inapplicable, unconstitutional statute. There is no way the witness taking the stand that day would have done so without an opposing attorney literally raising hell about the state's attempt to misinform the jury. What the officer got appears to be the state of Missouri acting as a defense attorney. And this is the important part of the difference between a grand jury investigation and a trial. If this was a trial, at least one lawyer would be present arguing on behalf of the dead man. Ordinarily, that should be the state. What was this whole deal if not a trial? It was what it was, a grand jury investigation. And as far as being a trial? It was never supposed to be. When you dive into the history of grand jury investigations and indictments, you will find that nothing about this particular process was normal. This was extraordinary process, above and beyond the call of what is due. This was the state throwing a case. That is what it was, and not a trial.​
     
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Arighty, that makes a bit more sense - I'm not as savvy on these aspects of our legal system

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I had thought this was a traditional trial - my mistake!
     
  10. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Take a long look into a mirror.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,511
    I see that you have taken a pause from your racist ideology to look up a dictionary. How wonderful. It is much better than your happy dancing on black people's graves while quoting and defending white supremacists and making white supremacist arguments yourself.

    Yes, I am one of those people who believes that prosecutors should do their job properly and represent the people and not their own self interest and their buddies in the police force, just as I am one of those people who believes that everyone has the right to a fair and impartial trial. Note the word "trial". Do you understand why that word is important in the context of this discussion?
     
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Two miles per hour is three feet per second.
    In the 6.5 seconds from first shot to last,
    Brown, charging at such a speed, could have covered 19.5 feet.
    The distance was 15 feet.
    Brown's rate of movement was less than 2mph.
    Tortoise like.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2014
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,511
    So much less than the average speed of "walking"..

    Hardly a "run" and "charge" that Wilson testified to, which he also testified he felt so threatened by that 'running at him' that he shot at Brown multiple times.
     
  14. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    In a race with the typical user of a zimmer frame,
    he would lose.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,511
    I suppose if he'd said "he walked really really slowly towards me in a threatening manner" just doesn't sound as good...

    So Wilson either cannot tell the difference between someone running and charging them or walking really slowly towards him and the gun he was holding.. Which again, begs the question, why did Brown stop running away from him (and keep in mind, he was running so hard and fast to get away that his shoes fell off his feet) turn around and walk so slowly back towards Wilson who had a gun and had shot at him in the car? How was that slow slow walk such a threat to Wilson who was 15 feet away that he felt he had to shoot his gun? Why didn't he use the mace he said testified he had on him?

    The physical evidence does not match up at all to what he has testified to. So he either lied under oath and was openly protected by the prosecutor or he is incompetent enough to not know the difference between someone walking really really slowly and someone running.

    He is very lucky that the prosecutor advised the jury to ignore the evidence and the law if actually looking at it would mean to indict him.
     
  16. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    LOL That's happened to me several times & each time I didn't need to do anything but stay out of the way until ... well each ended in a different manner but no 1 was significantly hurt in any. I preferred being patient to hurting someone badly.
     
  17. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    Scalia was referring to the Supreme Court decision regarding US v. Williams that found that federal prosecutors had no duty to present exculpatory evidence to a federal grand jury, which has no bearing on the duty of state prosecutors regarding state grand juries. In fact the majority of states require prosecutors to present some degree of exculpatory evidence to grand jurors, and no state prohibits prosecutors from presenting exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. And while in most states the accused doesn’t have a right to testify to a grand jury, there is no prohibition against them doing so. There is nothing illegal or necessarily improper about state prosecutors presenting evidence favoring the accused when such evidence is in existence, so why keep insisting that it is?

    Here’s some educational refreshment.

    Stepping Back: Thoughts on the Ferguson Grand Jury and Prosecutor

    http://stanfordlawyer.law.stanford....ts-on-the-ferguson-grand-jury-and-prosecutor/

    Do Prosecutors Have to Present Evidence That Helps the Defendant to a Grand Jury?

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...vidence-helps-the-defendant-grand-juries.html

    A lot of Michael Brown’s behavior doesn’t make sense. Why commit robbery and assault in a convenience store in front of witnesses and a video camera? And then afterwards walk down the middle of a street with the stolen property in plain sight? Then mouth off to a cop and draw even more attention to yourself? And then top it off by assaulting the cop? Sound like a rational individual to you?

    The reason Brown stopped running from the scene was that he realized he was being pursued by Wilson, and in his infinite wisdom may have thought he could stop his armed pursuer. Again.

    That Brown ran at Wilson prior to being killed is supported by witness testimony, whether brown was constantly running during the shooting as Wilson recalled is debatable, but regardless of how you categorize his motion, witness testimony and physical evidence show brown advancing towards Wilson during the shooting in spite of being warned to stop.

    The physical evidence does not disprove that Brown was running, only that it likely wasn’t fast or constant. If the most westward spent casing is advanced 10 ft instead of receded, Brown’s distance covered is 37 ft and his forward average speed is increased to 4 mph.

    Wilson’s basic premise that Brown assaulted him, ran away, reversed his course and advanced back towards him is consistent with the physical evidence, and the jurors found his narrative consistent enough with the more credible witness testimony to justify his claim of self defense.

    The prosecutors in this proceeding were not legally or ethically obliged to instruct the jurors to be biased for or against indictment; they let the unbiased body of evidence lead the jurors to their final conclusion. The proceedings of this grand jury are open and reviewable, and to my knowledge there has yet to be a valid challenge to their procedural legality or propriety.
     
  18. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I almost wonder... was Brown perhaps trying to commit "suicide by cop"? I mean it WOULD explain several odd behaviors...
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,511
    Wilson's basic premise and what he testified to does not fit the physical evidence. It does fit the countless of eyewitness testimony who testified that he shot at Brown as Brown was running away from him as fast as he could, even losing his shoes in the process and not stopping to get his Nike's, and then Brown stopped running when he opened fire at the retreating Brown, turned around and slowly walked back towards him. More than half the witnesses testified that this happened.

    He testified that Brown ran at him. The physical evidence does not support that at all. Unless Brown is a 2 year old toddler running at a jog, it does not support the physical evidence at all. Wilson testified that Brown took a faltering step forward and then started running and charging at him. There is no evidence to support that either. Just as there is no evidence to support the life and death struggle in the car and his apparently being punched so hard in the face and head that he thought he would lose consciousness.. I think I ended up with more bruising putting up my Christmas tree this year and jamming the lights through it.

    Brown was running away from him and running so hard and fast that his shoes came off his feet. He didn't stop or slow down to grab his Nikes. Wilson was chasing him with the gun that Brown was trying to run away from after being shot at twice in the car. And he kept running for quite a distance. So out of the blue, he just stops, turns around and runs back towards the guy with the gun? Oh sorry, no, not run back, but walked as fast as an old man with a walker.. and apparently did so in such a threatening manner (that slow walking forwards can be so scary when 15 feet away) that Wilson opened fire on the slowly advancing Brown... It doesn't add up. At all.

    And frankly, I think it is pathetic that people are trying to change his testimony, trying to claim that he was apparently incompetent enough to not know the difference between a run and charge and a slow slow walk, just so that it can fit the physical evidence.

    His testimony does not fit the physical evidence. At all. More than half of the eyewitnesses testified that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away, that Brown stopped, turned around, and slowly walked back towards him with his hands up and that Wilson stood still and opened fire. The physical evidence supports that. The sound recordings of the event support that as well. In no way does that physical evidence support Wilson's testimony. At all. But we'll never know, will we? Thanks to that prosecutor. Wilson may have resigned, but there is no stopping him getting a job elsewhere in another county or town as a police officer. So you'll either have a liar who murdered someone in cold blood on the force or walking around free to do as he pleases, or someone who is so incompetent that he can't tell if someone is walking slowly enough that a 1 year old could walk faster or if that person is running.
     
  20. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The 15ft Zimmer frame race.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,511
    Enough to make any police officer tremble in terror at such a threatening display and speed at which they move.

    Quick! Get a gun! The one on the right looks shifty and might tackle anyone to the ground and endanger their lives!
     
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I have to question the ethics of making an bunch of old ladies with walkers participate in any sort of race XD
     
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738

Share This Page