|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 25, 2014 22:31:10 GMT -5
People are saying the system has worked, let's move on. I believe system in fact has failed, and we as a society are going to have to live with the fact that a substantial portion of our fellow citizens forevermore will believe that, once again, they have been pranked by a system that is stacked against them. I think you're exactly right. People in Ferguson had a problem with this particular prosecutor right from the beginning and were calling for someone else, someone impartial, to handle the case. They didn't get someone else, but they did get the result they expected all along. There is also a federal investigation, and maybe something will come out of that. Unlike a lot of people in Ferguson and a lot of people around the country with opinions on both sides of the issue, I haven't made up my mind on Darin Wilson. I can be satisfied with either a guilty or not guilty verdict. But so far I'm not satisfied that there has been justice. I'm not satisfied that evidence has been fairly presented and considered.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 26, 2014 7:20:57 GMT -5
While setting up for this afternoons gig the TV was on in the bar (don't know which network) but the reporter guy was grilling the prosecutor with questions like, "why did you let a guilty murder go?" "why did you let a racist cop who shot an innocent man in the back go?" Media wants a race war. OK, Doug, I am calling total bullshit on this post if you cannot provide at least one skinny link to anything approaching what you claim to have heard. Fair call, Bill. Like I said I was setting up. TV is up on the wall and you can't see it from the stage where I'm setting up so I don't know, and I don't have TV at home so I don't get that 24hr news stuff there. Only thing I remember other than he was an ass was it was a man. First time there gig so I"m busy finding outlets, light switches etc. so it's only background.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Nov 26, 2014 10:56:53 GMT -5
Michael Brown did apparently have fairly high levels of THC in his blood and urine. Maybe he had some kind of weird reaction to pot that made him more aggressive and impaired his judgement. You wouldn't think pot would do that but I guess it can in some people.
I remember reading reports of troops fighting insurgents in Iraq that were ramped up on drugs and how you could put lots of rounds into them and they would still keep coming at you until they actually died.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 12:08:31 GMT -5
Michael Brown did apparently have fairly high levels of THC in his blood and urine. Maybe he had some kind of weird reaction to pot that made him more aggressive and impaired his judgement. You wouldn't think pot would do that but I guess it can in some people. You may be confusing cannabis with alcohol.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 26, 2014 12:13:29 GMT -5
Michael Brown did apparently have fairly high levels of THC in his blood and urine. Maybe he had some kind of weird reaction to pot that made him more aggressive and impaired his judgement. You wouldn't think pot would do that but I guess it can in some people. You may be confusing cannabis with alcohol. Doctors are prone to that kind of confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 12:24:36 GMT -5
Okay let's go with Reefer Madness!!!
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 26, 2014 12:30:47 GMT -5
I've seen no evidence that Michael Brown was anything other than a garden variety thug doing what garden variety thugs do.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 26, 2014 12:31:28 GMT -5
Headline #1 (the one I commonly seeing): Cop Shoots Unarmed Teenager
Headline #2 (the one I have not seen): Drugged-up Robbery and Assault Suspect Shot After Striking Police Officer and Attempting to Take Officer's Gun.
Ok, the second headline is a little long and doesn't have the pithy social punch of the first one (which ran in the NY Times and several dozen other papers), but the first headline leaves out every detail that matters.
Brown wasn't shot because he was an unarmed black teenager. He was shot because he was charging a cop, after having robbed a store, assaulted a store clerk, struck a police officer and struggled with the police officer in an attempt to gain control of the police officer's gun... all while under the influence of a high dose of THC.
But, the story is being re-cast (out of some sort of psychological/pathological necessity). Police officer Wilson is the big bad wolf and poor boy Brown was a 290 pound Little Red Riding Hood skipping down the street to grandmother's house.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 26, 2014 12:34:51 GMT -5
Michael Brown did apparently have fairly high levels of THC in his blood and urine. Maybe he had some kind of weird reaction to pot that made him more aggressive and impaired his judgement. You wouldn't think pot would do that but I guess it can in some people. I remember reading reports of troops fighting insurgents in Iraq that were ramped up on drugs and how you could put lots of rounds into them and they would still keep coming at you until they actually died. The development of the M1911 pistol was partly inspired by the Army's need for a large slug that would stop charging Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American war. They were ferocious fighters often so high on drugs that they would ignore the pain of a gunshot and keep coming. The Army needed something that would physically stop them in their tracks, and the .45 size did the trick. From Wilson's account, and the physical evidence, it sounds like Brown was similarly undeterred by the first couple or three shots.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 26, 2014 12:37:15 GMT -5
Headline #1 (the one I commonly seeing): Cop Shoots Unarmed Teenager Headline #2 (the one I have not seen): Drugged-up Robbery and Assault Suspect Shot After Striking Police Officer and Attempting to Take Officer's Gun. Ok, the second headline is a little long and doesn't have the pithy social punch of the first one (which ran in the NY Times and several dozen other papers), but the first headline leaves out every detail that matters. Brown wasn't shot because he was an unarmed black teenager. He was shot because he was charging a cop, after having robbed a store, assaulted a store clerk, struck a police officer and struggled with the police officer in an attempt to gain control the police officer's gun... all while under the influence of a high dose of THC. But, the story is being re-cast (out of some sort of psychological/pathological necessity). Police officer Wilson is the big bad wolf and poor boy Brown was a 290 pound Little Red Riding Hood skipping down the street to grandmother's house. And if ever the "civil rights movement" picked the wrong guy to rally around, it is now.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 26, 2014 12:40:55 GMT -5
Facts don't matter to rallys. You don't need the truth when you have The Truth.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 26, 2014 12:47:47 GMT -5
Well, the good news is two nights of rioting and looting have definitively solved our legacy racial problems, once and for all.
Why didn't we think of this sooner?
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Nov 26, 2014 13:09:01 GMT -5
Michael Brown did apparently have fairly high levels of THC in his blood and urine. Maybe he had some kind of weird reaction to pot that made him more aggressive and impaired his judgement. You wouldn't think pot would do that but I guess it can in some people. I remember reading reports of troops fighting insurgents in Iraq that were ramped up on drugs and how you could put lots of rounds into them and they would still keep coming at you until they actually died. The development of the M1911 pistol was partly inspired by the Army's need for a large slug that would stop charging Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American war. They were ferocious fighters often so high on drugs that they would ignore the pain of a gunshot and keep coming. The Army needed something that would physically stop them in their tracks, and the .45 size did the trick. From Wilson's account, and the physical evidence, it sounds like Brown was similarly undeterred by the first couple or three shots. Beat me to it. These fighters were "amoks" which is where the term running amok comes from. I remember my dad telling me this fifty years ago
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 26, 2014 14:37:16 GMT -5
The Army had changed from the 45 Long Colt to the 38 S&W replacing the single action (cock for each shot) with the double action (cocks and fires with trigger pull). With gun that later became the S&W Military and Police which later became the S&W Model 10 (I think that change came with the .38 Special replacing the .38 S&W. John Browning was working on the .45acp guns and producing them as early as 1902 in .38auto and again in 1908 in .45acp the M1911 was licensed to Colt and made the change from the old .38 S&W revolvers. The M1911 became the M1911a1 with the larger beaver tail to prevent web cuts. Old M1911s were converted to a1s over a 20 yr period from 1914ish to 1935ish as they came into the armories. Shipments of new a1s started during WW1.
During the same period the British were shifting from the .455 Webley to the .380 Webley (which is the same cartridge as the US .38 S&W with a heavier bullet. A bunch of S&W Model 10s were made for Lend Lease in WW2 in the .380 Webley/.38 S&W chambering. Those of you who were out at Bob at IJ got to fire one of the Lend Lease .38 S&W.
That's all off the top of my head and the dates may be off by a few years either way.
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Nov 26, 2014 14:53:00 GMT -5
And those old 38 S&W's still shoot straight and true.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,915
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub on Nov 26, 2014 17:59:46 GMT -5
Like many, I can't judge the guilt or innocence of either Wilson or Brown from my vantage point. It does seem as though the prosecutor acted more as a defense attorney than a prosecutor and helped to guide the grand jury to their verdict. If that is true, then the prosecutor is the only one I'm reasonably certain is guilty of anything. Much better, in my opinion, to let the grand jury return an indictment and let the facts be presented in a trial. If Wilson is really innocent, I think a jury could have reached that conclusion. I've seen juries return surprising and unpopular verdicts before. At least a trial would allow for the airing of all useful evidence. My understanding is that a grand jury merely decides if there is enough evidence to prosecute. It isn't a trial. It doesn't establish guilt or innocence. Since Wilson has not been tried, I imagine an indictment could still be brought against him. I don't think that violates the prohibition against double indemnity. But what do I know?
It sounded to me as though there were witnesses on each side and Wilson's testimony is what absolved him. But I'm sure that's an oversimplification.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 18:45:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure that the Moro guerrillas in the Philippine - American wars would have passed around a bong to make themselves fearless and aggressive and unstoppable. I have been in groups of people a lot of times who did not become more fearless, unstoppably warrior-like and impervious to pain after a few puffs of weed.
Also, Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
Sorry, I've lost the link to that. Cut, paste, search should find it.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Nov 26, 2014 18:51:40 GMT -5
Like many, I can't judge the guilt or innocence of either Wilson or Brown from my vantage point. It does seem as though the prosecutor acted more as a defense attorney than a prosecutor and helped to guide the grand jury to their verdict. If that is true, then the prosecutor is the only one I'm reasonably certain is guilty of anything. Much better, in my opinion, to let the grand jury return an indictment and let the facts be presented in a trial. If Wilson is really innocent, I think a jury could have reached that conclusion. I've seen juries return surprising and unpopular verdicts before. At least a trial would allow for the airing of all useful evidence. My understanding is that a grand jury merely decides if there is enough evidence to prosecute. It isn't a trial. It doesn't establish guilt or innocence. Since Wilson has not been tried, I imagine an indictment could still be brought against him. I don't think that violates the prohibition against double indemnity. But what do I know? It sounded to me as though there were witnesses on each side and Wilson's testimony is what absolved him. But I'm sure that's an oversimplification. Exactly. The job of the Grand Jury is not to determine the truth or guilt or innocence. It is to determine only if there is sufficient evidence to indict. It is the job of the trial jury to hear all evidence and determine truth and guilt. In this case, the prosecutor did a number of things that are very unusual. For one thing, it is rare for the case for the defense to be presented to the Grand Jury. and the presenter was the prosecutor, essentially acting as the defense attorney. He punched holes in the testimony of his own witnesses and handled the defemse witnesses with kid gloves. Finally, it is a truism that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich if the DA asks them to. The prosecutor didn't ask for an indictment. He never told the jury what charge he wanted them to indict on.Here is Dana Milbank on the prosecution's behavior:
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Nov 26, 2014 19:07:16 GMT -5
The development of the M1911 pistol was partly inspired by the Army's need for a large slug that would stop charging Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American war. They were ferocious fighters often so high on drugs that they would ignore the pain of a gunshot and keep coming. The Army needed something that would physically stop them in their tracks, and the .45 size did the trick. From Wilson's account, and the physical evidence, it sounds like Brown was similarly undeterred by the first couple or three shots. Beat me to it. These fighters were "amoks" which is where the term running amok comes from. I remember my dad telling me this fifty years ago Running amok has nothing to do with drugs.If any traditional drugs in Iraq were used in combat, they were most likely derivatives of opium, because the poppy grows well in that area. Marijuana is traditionally more closely associated with India. If the drugged fighters (if they WERE drugged) were 50 years ago, that makes it likely they were on modern pharmaceuticals. Remember, amphetamines were widely available in WWII, Hitler was addicted to them. (Is it page 7 already?)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 26, 2014 19:50:59 GMT -5
For good or ill, officer Wilson isn't out of the woods by any means.
All the evidence the Grand Jury based their decision on is now in the hands of the Department of Justice. A team of legal eagles working for Justice Department, and under the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder, will sift through every bit of evidence, including how it was presented and deliberated, to determine if Brown's Civil Rights were violated.
As some will recall, it was a review by the Justice Department that nailed two of the police officers that beat Rodney King. Those officers had been brought to trial and acquitted by a California jury (which set of the 1992 Los Angeles Riots). The Justice Department investigated the matter and convened a Grand Jury to see if Rodney King's Civil Rights been violated and the two officers were found guilty in a Federal Court and imprisoned.
And, after the Feds are done investigating the Wilson/Brown/Grand Jury business and have acted or not acted, then it is an absolute guaranteed certainty that the Brown Family will brig a Wrongful Death civil suit against officer Wilson.
And, as many will recall, it was a Wrongful Death civil suit that nailed O.J. Simpson after he had been acquitted by a jury in his criminal trial. The burden of proof is lower in a civil trial than it is in a criminal trial and it is easier to nail someone.
Brown is dead, his life is ruined, no doubt about that. As for Wilson, at the best, he will lose his job and will be struggling to pay his legal bills and try rebuild his life long after the rest of the country has forgotten he ever existed. At the worst, not only will he be bankrupt, he will be in the slammer with good "cop friends" for twenty or thirty years.
But, he will have his life, the pieces that remain. I almost hope that he shot the bastard for the fun of it, at least then he will have earned his fate. If he was just trying to do his job and really believed Brown had flipped out and was going after him to get his gun...,
We want and need good cops, but who the hell with any brains and options would want to be one?
|
|