No indictment in the mike brown case

At least 10 shots with 6 of them hitting the unarmed victim is not self defense no matter what the police claim the circumstances were.

Cops are trained to aim center mass and shot to neutralize the threat immediately. Not sure what Officer Brown had as a gun but a very common patrolman's weapon is a 9mm pistol. Have you ever fired one? Supposedly the first clip were a combination of shots that went through Brown's arms or missed. A person with fast hands can change out a clip in a second and a half and squeeze a trigger 6 times a second. You could shoot somebody six times before they probably even realized they had been hit.

This isn't Hollywood where a handgun bullet sends a 200 pound man flying backwards. Cops don't squeeze off one shot and then wait to see what happens. The guy had already went for the officers gun and was charging him. Officer Wilson was also by himself, that makes a big difference in strategy.

If I shot someone like this cop did I would be in jail. No If ands or buts about it. This cop only gets away with it because he has a uniform on. Period. No one else gets to murder someone and walk away.

The depth of "wrong" and complete misunderstanding of the rule of law in this statement demonstrates your inherent bias on the issue.

If you, as a lawfully armed citizen, pursued an individual after an altercation had ended and took it upon yourself to initiate a second confrontation in which you used deadly force. Yes, you may likely end up in jail charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

That, however, is very different from a law enforcement officer trying to apprehend a suspected criminal who just assaulted the law enforcement officer, made an attempt to grab the law enforcement officer's weapon, ignored the lawful commands of the law enforcement officer, and who was now charging the law enforcement officer in an attempt assault him a second time.

But, by all means, buy into the media's racial spin, make a judgment based on what they tell you, and only trust the judicial process when it rules the way you think it should based on your incomplete, media supplied understanding of the facts.

Pitchforks and torches uber alles!


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

He shouldn't have been indicted.

(page 1167 of the grand jury testimony is an eye witness account that backs up cop's story)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-assets/grand-jury-testimony.pdf



Add the firearm report, the dna report and it all matches the cop's version on what happened. This is a no brainer and I wished the public would get behind a better case instead of one where the people in question are innocent.


Nobody gives a fuck about the evidence, and I seriously doubt they care if the cop is guilty or not. They just want him to suffer due to racial injustices in the community.

By all accounts, that's a true statement. At the same time, in this instance, the it appears that a thieve who punched an officer, reached into the officer's car, tried grab his gun and then got shot while charging the officer.

Could Wilson have done something differently? Probably. Could it all been avoided if Brown had not attempted to assault an officer? Most definitely.

Sorry, if you want a poster child of racial profiling by police, Michael Brown - on the day in question - is not the guy.

Yeah this is a good point, but I wasnt really going there with my statement.

Point was, there is a history within police force so i cant 100% trust the officer story. There is also accounts of officer wilson in the past of being shady. Also there is, I believe, account of the prosecuter being a "cop guy" where issues in the past have not been handled correctly.

I believe the best course of action now is to open those complaints from before and go after the officers in the force and see if we can get charges brought. Looks like the prosecutors dont have the balls to do whats right, which is no surprise.

Simply, saying oh well and moving right along is the wrong way. I would strongly urge the folks to burn the city to the ground if thats the attitude

Yeah this is a good point, but I wasnt really going there with my statement.

Point was, there is a history within police force so i cant 100% trust the officer story. There is also accounts of officer wilson in the past of being shady.[/U] Also there is, I believe, account of the prosecuter being a "cop guy" where issues in the past have not been handled correctly.

I believe the best course of action now is to open those complaints from before and go after the officers in the force and see if we can get charges brought. Looks like the prosecutors dont have the balls to do whats right, which is no surprise.

Simply, saying oh well and moving right along is the wrong way. I would strongly urge the folks to burn the city to the ground if thats the attitudeHow do you charge ANYONE based on what you said? (underlined for effect). Seriously? WTF?

How do you charge ANYONE based on what you said? (underlined for effect). Seriously? WTF?

State or federal government should bring in special presecutors. You need to bring in indepedent folks. The police captain should be fired or made to step down. its criminal he is still in charge, his house should be burned down first

Yeah this is a good point, but I wasnt really going there with my statement.

Point was, there is a history within police force so i cant 100% trust the officer story. There is also accounts of officer wilson in the past of being shady. Also there is, I believe, account of the prosecuter being a "cop guy" where issues in the past have not been handled correctly.

I believe the best course of action now is to open those complaints from before and go after the officers in the force and see if we can get charges brought. Looks like the prosecutors dont have the balls to do whats right, which is no surprise.

Simply, saying oh well and moving right along is the wrong way. I would strongly urge the folks to burn the city to the ground if thats the attitude


SO you just going to ignore the facts in the case, which I conveniently posted above? I think I'm about as anti-police as you can get, but the idea of prosecuting a person wrongly is sickening.

SO you just going to ignore the facts in the case, which I conveniently posted above? I think I'm about as anti-police as you can get, but the idea of prosecuting a person wrongly is sickening.

I can see how charges werent brought, but I really dont think there was ever a fair chance they would be brought. The cards were already stacked against the community because of the culture within the police department/presecutor's office.


Dont tell me justice was served this time, when it hasnt been in the past. But this time we got it right, so we are all good. Nope that doesnt work and its not right. So burn it down

Another sign of a city/police department/prosecutor who has no clue is announcing the verdict of whether to indict...announcing it at night. Cant believe the city would further put its citizens lives in more danger. WTF?

Again, the police force in Ferguson was not on trial, that's not how it works - guilt by association is not acceptable for anyone. Whether the suspect is a policeman or a minority, you look at the facts of the incident, and only those facts, when deciding to charge someone with a crime. We don't put people on trial and at risk of their liberty b/c of their reputation - or the reputation of those with whom they are associated. Rather, the American justice/judicial system is based on the principle that you can only be tried for the specific crime being alleged.

The prosecutor has a lot of control in the grand jury. He could have gamed the system and gotten an indictment by withholding some evidence or highlighting others. I don't know a whole lot about the practice but I believe prosecutors normally present minimal evidence - just enough to get an indictment. Here, the prosecutor presented a lot of evidence to the GJ both exculpatory and not so. You would have to talk to a criminal prosecutor to find out just how outside the norm such a procedure is, if at all.

At the same time, unlike in a trial, the jurors get to examine witnesses directly and can essentially say "Is that all you have?" Again, I believe the G. Jurors themselves can request subpoenas and more evidence. Ultimately, it is their call.

The issue of Ferguson's police force and racial profiling is a separate matter. There are mechanisms to appeal to State and Federal authorities for review. I believe that some of those actions are in progress. While police must have authority to enforce the law and society has to buy into that for them to be effective, abuse of authority should be severely punished and I don't trust police dept.'s to police their own.

[The reason the punishment must be severe is b/c of the social contract with law enforcement and is the converse of why those who attack law enforcement officers should also be severely punished: "We give you authority to use force against us so that we may have safety in our daily lives. Further, because you place yourself in harm's way for us, we have your back. Because an assault on an officer of the law is an assault on all of us, we will make sure that those who attack or attempt to harm you, as you protect us, are punished to a greater extent than if they attacked one of us directly. In return, you promise not to abuse either the authority given or the protection provided. If you do, we will hold you to the same harsh standards as we hold those who would attempt to undermine the rule of law by attacking you."]

Given the scenes of mob criminality last night, and the distrust of the police force, however, I am not sure how the rule of law will ever be reestablished in that town. It is a sad state when the citizenry can't/won't trust those entrusted to enforce the rule of law because those in authority have abused their authority. I suspect Ferguson is in for a long, dark night of repression and lawlessness (symbolically speaking that is).

One final thought - A recurrent theme is that a black officer shooting an unarmed white guy would be in jail pronto. You can believe what you wish, my belief differs. I suggest to you that, in this case - if Wilson were black and Brown were white, Ferguson's Thin Blue Line would have rallied around the officer just as they did here and the shooting would have made the local news - but not a blip anywhere else - and when the GJ inevitably chose not to indict the black officer not a single riot would have ensued.

In this case, Brown assaulted an officer, ignored his lawful commands, and charged at him. The mob saw one thing, the forensics evidenced another. The "no indictment" decision was right In this case, regardless of: (1) the race of the cop or the dead teen; (2) whether or not Wilson was a sketchy cop; or (3) whether or not the Ferguson PD was a sketchy unit.

Racial hatred/suspicion runs so deep in this country - especially amongst the lower social classes of both whites and blacks. Just don't know if it will ever get better.