world

Missouri governor declares state of emergency ahead of ruling on Ferguson shooting

130 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

130 Comments
Login to comment

It is becoming the injustice demand for justice. Allegedly speaking, Mike Brown was not an innocent angel, and the cops also need to implement cultural sensitivity as part of the jobs. When two stooges crossing their parts, the drama begins and the opportunistic exploiters start the fire. Too much of dependency and entitlement culture could only see one way!

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

That the governor is freaking out to this degree before a verdict has even been reached suggests that acquittal is all but certain, implying further that this is an open-and-shut-case of the police officer acting entirely appropriately. Even a casual observer can see that it isn't. An acquittal absolutely cannot be a forgone conclusion, and if the grand jury does indeed come back with a verdict that confirms the governor and police department's fears of violent blowback in just such a case, that strongly suggests something stinks to the high heavens in Fergeson. If the jury comes back with an acquittal, Governor Nixon has every right to expect all hell to break loose, because it rightfully will.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

First, "Thank you, JT" for continuing to provide up-to-the-moment coverage of this extremely important story.

Second: Mayor Knowles suggests a dunk tank that is short a clown. He's an utter moron. A total disgrace.

Allegedly speaking, Mike Brown was not an innocent angel,

What does "allegedly speaking" mean? There is not a single American walking the streets today who is an "innocent angel." Does that mean it's perfectly justified for cops to execute them?

Too much of dependency and entitlement culture could only see one way!

More incoherent babbling. There were Caucasian -- you know, white -- construction workers who saw the events unfold. Were they part of an "entitlement culture?" Those construction workers have reported that Brown turned to surrender with his hands raised and the cop just shot him down like a dog. If you advocate killing people like dogs, don't be surprised when some turn to bite you.

That the governor is freaking out to this degree before a verdict has even been reached suggests that acquittal is all but certain

Allow me to correct you. This is not an acquittal. An acquittal can only come after a formal trial. This is a secret tribunal which determines whether or not charges should be brought against the officer. But keep in mind that, at this secret tribunal, there is no judge, there is no legal representation of the victim. Absolutely everything is orchestrated and controlled by the district attorney. As the saying goes, if he wanted to indict a ham sandwich, the sandwich would stand trial.

The people protesting make this simple claim for justice: There is ample evidence to suggest probable cause of excessive use of force. A fleeing, unarmed, 18-year-old kid in flip-flops -- who has already been shot at least three or four times -- against a trained cop with a firearm. All 100 feet from the cop's vehicle, with the cop chasing him and firing. Why not charge him and put all the witnesses under oath, and subject to cross-examination? That would be the American way -- and all these protesters would be satisfied.

Secret tribunals are for totalitarian dictatorships. The people have a right, an obligation, to protest this. They are the real Americans.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

A fleeing, unarmed, 18-year-old kid in flip-flops -- who has already been shot at least three or four times -- against a trained cop with a firearm

@ yabits: You must not be talking about this case. It has been shown that the victim was assualting the cop before he was shot. The cop has wounds to prove it. Also, prior to the shooting, he is on video doing a strong arm robbery in a convenience store for cigars to make "blunts" which if you didn't know, you use them with your marijuana.

I am all for curbing police brutality, and if this was just a kid who was not walking in the middle of the street, and didn't stop when the cops asked him to but was shot anyway, then I would say the people have a right to be angry. Not a right to riot and burn their own community down but to be angry. But, based on the evidence that has been shown, this is not the case. You say some white witnessess saw this, but also did some black ones and their testimonies jibe with what the cop says.

If it seems that everyone wants to come out of the wood works and testify as to what they saw, where are these people when there are black on black crimes, and the police ask and they get the silent treatment? Let's see what the Grand Jury says and go with it. Also, the Grand Jury is made up of people from the community who are registered voters. Again with this story, Blacks are up to 65% of the community, but only had about 6% participation in the last few elections. So again, it will probably be made up of people who may not look like the community. So don't come out with "people don't have the time or opportunity to vote" if the very same people have been gearing up for the past few days to protest the verdict. That takes a lot longer than going to the polls on one day for a few hours to vote and participate in the democratic process.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

What does "allegedly speaking" mean? There is not a single American walking the streets today who is an "innocent angel." Does that mean it's perfectly justified for cops to execute them?

After what happened last time and from past historical racial events, it would be wise to caution on the side of error, rather than to be sorry.

More incoherent babbling. There were Caucasian -- you know, white -- construction workers who saw the events unfold.

And many of the testimonies of these and others were thrown out.

Were they part of an "entitlement culture?" Those construction workers have reported that Brown turned to surrender with his hands raised and the cop just shot him down like a dog. If you advocate killing people like dogs, don't be surprised when some turn to bite you.

How do we know that when these people were vetted that their testimonies didn't hold up? Or that they saw something completely different altogether.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Secret tribunals are for totalitarian dictatorships.

----or to protect people in this case.

The people have a right, an obligation, to protest this.

The absolutely have a right for peaceful protest. "Obligation", how so? Because you believe Wilson had no justification? Seems to be a selfish "obligation" to me.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

You must not be talking about this case. It has been shown that the victim was assualting the cop before he was shot.

It has been shown? Where has it been shown? Brown was shot and killed 100 feet from the cop's vehicle. Was he assaulting him there? You have to be smarter than that, AlphaApe.

The cop has wounds to prove it.

Where? In the video recently released to the public -- taken two hours after the event at the police station -- Wilson is shown walking out without a scratch on him. The hospital released him immediately after a standard examination. Why are you making things up?

Whatever happened at the convenience store, short of an armed robbery is irrelevant. Brown was unarmed. A theft of cigars is not a capital crime. Or are you claiming it is? Using "blunts" to smoke weed is not a capital offense. Or are you claiming it is? If not, then why is it relevant?

But, based on the evidence that has been shown

What evidence? Your problem, AlphaApe, is that you allow yourself to be convinced from sources that want this kid dead, and the cop justified for executing him. Yes, that is your problem.

Let's see what the Grand Jury says and go with it.

WRONG No way. Grand juries are just a rubber stamp. Secret tribunals have no place in societies allegedly based on justice and democracy. Even if they vote to indict -- which means defying a D.A. that has not recommended indictment -- I am utterly opposed to this unjust process.

Also, the Grand Jury is made up of people from the community who are registered voters. Again with this story, Blacks are up to 65% of the community, but only had about 6% participation in the last few elections. So again, it will probably be made up of people who may not look like the community.

If you read what you just wrote, Ape, you'll find that you've successfully chased and caught your own tail. Not only do they not represent the community, there is nobody representing the side of Brown. The D.A. controls everything. That is FAR too much power to put in one person's hands -- especially one who is the son of a cop and who supports police 110%. For which the KKK and racist whites applaud him.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

@Yabits,

Well see what happens. Armchair investigators are irrelevant in this case as nothing seems to be clear. Everytime there is an incident with white and blacks doesnt equate to racism. A black cop shot a white person the same week as the Brown case and nobody gave a rats ass. Hopefully, things can be sorted out without too much commotion. If there are protests and they become violent then arrest the thugs. Thats all. We dont need another L.A. riot situation.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

And many of the testimonies of these and others were thrown out....that when these people were vetted

The grand jury process is conducted in complete secrecy. You have no earthly way of knowing which testimonies were heard and which were "thrown out." No member of the public, not even the members of the grand jury, is privy to the D.A.'s "vetting process." In other words, you continue to lie and fabricate. There is no advocate whatsoever for Brown's side (or his family's) in this process. In a standard trial, the defense would collect and subpoena witnesses and have them testify under oath, subject to cross-examination.

In this case, we have a single person -- the DA -- determining all by himself what to put in front of the grand jury. And the public has no idea if this guy is unbiased. Why should they have any confidence in him at all?

Because you believe Wilson had no justification?

Based on the eyewitnesses who have gone public with there stories -- plus the physical evidence of an unarmed 18-year-old lying dead in the street 100 feet from the officer's vehicle -- suggest probable cause for an indictment for use of excessive force.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Based on the eyewitnesses who have gone public with there stories -- plus the physical evidence of an unarmed 18-year-old lying dead in the street 100 feet from the officer's vehicle -- suggest probable cause for an indictment for use of excessive force.

@ yabits: Now you are not making sense. If it was such a smoking gun (sorry for the pun) then why go through the Grand Jury process, and just get on with the trial. But there seems to be not enough evidence to suppor that. You keep saying "what testimony and evidence" when I brought up my points, but somehow the evidence and testimony is the "gospel" when you bring up yours.

Also, if it is indeed as you think going to show that the officer has enough against him to go to trial, then why would the Gov. be preparing for the worse? If the people want him to be tried, and according to your beliefs they will get their trial, then why should they riot? Again, you need to take a step back and withdraw the emotion and rhetoric and just look at the facts.

Even if according to your thinking there is enough and he is found to be cleared by the Grand Jury, they why burn and loot your own community? They didn't do it unless you count the Grand jury who is made up of registered voters of the community, and if you blame them, then they should blame themselves for not tacking part of their community. I wonder what the impact of this case has done to businesses in the area with the threat of potential rioting. Ask yourself yabits, if you owned a business in the area, would you feel comforatble with it now with the potential to lose it to some riots for something that you didn't have anything to do?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Unfortunately, this article lacks a new element that has come into play.

The KKK has announced that they are organizing and preparing to go up to Ferguson County. This is a new development and it can be found on YouTube.

Over the past week the KKK has been handing out leaflets warning of "lethal force" if the Ferguson protesters continue their so-called crusade.

So from a devil's advocate approach, it is prudent for the National Guard to be on stand by. The alternative is the KKK being withing a mile of the protesters and that could mean a call to arms.

It would be Montgomery all over again. However in this day and age with iphones and cameras everywhere there would be NO denying the racial indignities negroid Americans suffer on a daily basis

With Mandela gone and MLK gone racism is very much like a zombie that won't die.

Most of already know the answer to this question: Will this police officer be indicted?

Probably NOT.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If it was such a smoking gun (sorry for the pun) then why go through the Grand Jury process, and just get on with the trial.

One possible reason is because by using a grand jury, with a single person deciding which evidence is shown, they can protect the officer from prosecution. If they went straight to a trial, they couldn't protect him.

there seems to be not enough evidence to suppor that.

No one knows that, because all evidence is being shown in a secret tribunal. No one outside that tribunal knows what evidence they are or are not showing.

If the people want him to be tried, and according to your beliefs they will get their trial

The will of the people has nothing to do with it, or he'd already be on trial, and this grand jury nonsense wouldn't be happening.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Grand jury has lower bar of evidence/burden of proof to indict a suspect for trial.

Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Over the past week the KKK has been handing out leaflets warning of "lethal force" if the Ferguson protesters continue their so-called crusade.

Note that the only element actively threatening violence is the Klan -- who are staunchly supporting the DA and the police officer. Like white racists everywhere, they believe the unarmed 18-year-old being executed in the street was what he had coming to him.

An organized group of computer hackers have hacked into the KKK's account and has been publishing the names of the members of this shadowy group in the St. Louis area. Wonder if any cops will show up on the roles.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Man, the U.S. is just a classy country.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Unarmed 18 year old.

Most posters forget to mention that this angel was 6'4 and weighted 132 kgs.

He had robbed a store, swatting aside the store clerk when he tried to stop him. He then assaulted officer Wilson , walked away and then turned back and headed for Wilson.

He was unarmed but he sure used his strength to a lethal effect.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

If you understood the grand jury system, you would know that members of a grand jury vote to go against a DA less than 1% of the time. Less than one percent. (Are D.A.'s that infallible?) That's why they are considered a rubber stamp

@ yabits: Again, if there is that much evidence, then hte Grand Jury would vote to bring it to trial. So for one moment you are going to say that they don't have enough sense to know what's right and what's wrong if they don't go your way. But, if they decide to bring it to trial, you will then go on and say that the people have spoken. Also, I believe that the Grand jury is made up of people from the community, so if they are in such an outrage, then the DA would still be taking a chance having them to look at the evidence.

Also, according to one post by the protest group, they have listed certain areas where they will launch protests. Why go and protest against places like Boeing, Anheuser-Busch Headquarters and other places in the area that had nothing to do with this case? I don't blame the Gov for wanting to protect the majority of residents who had nothing to do with this case, but find that their property is a potential riot site by a bunch of rabble.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

He was unarmed but he sure used his strength to a lethal effect.

Who did Brown injure? Certainly not the store clerk. Lethal effect? Wow, there's a bizarre use of words. Based on your past posts, you have an obsession with and are terrified by a big black man.

He then assaulted officer Wilson

There is no evidence Wilson was assaulted. At least there is nothing that appears on the videos showing Wilson at the scene or at the police station. Note that some of the lying Wilson-supporters here claimed he had a broken eye-socket. Two hours later, a broken eye-socket would been easy to spot. He got a perfunctory check at a medical facility (for show) and was released immediately.

walked away and then turned back and headed for Wilson

We now know that Brown was shot by Wilson at the car. Brown and his friend didn't just "walk away." They ran. By this time a whole slew of eyewitnesses were watching the scene. Brown got 100 feet from the vehicle, was grazed by a shot, and turned around with his hands raised to surrender. No eyewitness has him making any kind of threatening move towards Wilson. NONE.

Again, if there is that much evidence, then hte Grand Jury would vote to bring it to trial

Listen to yourself. There is that much evidence, but it's not going to just fall out of the sky and land in the grand jury's lap. Many are likely just as clueless as the posters here -- and that's exactly how the DA wants them to be.

But, if they decide to bring it to trial, you will then go on and say that the people have spoken.

Wrong, chum. The "people" never speak through a grand jury -- no matter what decision they arrive at. 99.9% of the time, they speak for the DA.

Also, I believe that the Grand jury is made up of people from the community, so if they are in such an outrage, then the DA would still be taking a chance having them to look at the evidence.

That makes not one bit of sense at all. Do you believe that grand jury members are selected according to their party affiliation? That if they are selected from registered Republicans, that they are more likely to blindly believe that the police need to be protected by the legal system? (Rather than feeling outraged?) As far as the DA taking any chance, the DA might decide to let them listen to the police's side of the story only. After all, there is nobody there who represents the victim.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

I don't care much about this.. but I've seen the video of the store were this 18 year old (a very big lad) punched and robbed the store and then went out...

For some people, that apparently is not a crime.... but for me it is. If he put resistance to the cops (and if he punched or harmed a person during his interrogation and possible arrest) that is also enough to get him to jail... and for the cops to bring up some kind of weapon (a mob-stick or a gun).

So for the little I gathered, this 18 year old and his actions were a big reason for him to get shot and killed.

Not justifying blindly the actions of the cop either... since the cop could have use non-lethal weapon or could have shot him in the leg to immobilize him instead of killing him.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The Democrat Governor is giving the hell raisers a heads up so they can get organized for anarchy. So now a new tragedy will be ginned up to keep the rage going. The assumption of innocence for a white police man is anathema to these "peaceful" protestors. If the Left isn't agitating about something - anything - they aren't happy.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I don't care much about this.. but I've seen the video of the store were this 18 year old (a very big lad) punched and robbed the store and then went out...

For some people, that apparently is not a crime

Bit of a strawman there - no one is claiming that's not a crime.

But the whole store incident is irrelevant, since the officer did not know about the incident when he shot the kid.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That makes not one bit of sense at all. Do you believe that grand jury members are selected according to their party affiliation? That if they are selected from registered Republicans, that they are more likely to blindly believe that the police need to be protected by the legal system?

In this case, it is made up of 12 people, 9 whites and 3 blacks. Grand juries are seated not for a case by case basis, but are generally placed in an "on call" status. So when they are picked, they are normally selected prior to their being requied to be in a case. Party affiliation should not matter, but if you want to take a look at it, I would imagine that there would be more Dems on the jury than Republicans, since the Gov is a Dem.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

but I've seen the video of the store were this 18 year old (a very big lad) punched and robbed the store

If you've seen the video, you would know that Brown never "punched" the store clerk. The clerk grabbed Brown and Brown simply pushed him out of the way to the side. It was more of a straight-arm to the guy's collar. The push was clearly not that hard. (Nothing on the display rack fell off, and the clerk was immediately back and trying to get Brown to stop. The second time, Brown just started at him. Wow, some violence.)

For some people, that apparently is not a crime..

Generally, for a crime of that type, the victim has to file formal charges. The store never did that. That doesn't mean what Brown did wasn't illegal, but it's hardly the kind of thing deserving being shot in the street for.

. since the cop could have use non-lethal weapon or could have shot him in the leg to immobilize him instead of killing him.

Whoa. The only reason for use of deadly force is if the cop has good reason to suspect that Brown was an immediate threat to himself or to other members of the community. When the officer first spotted Brown, he was just walking in the street with his friend. There was no way he could have connected the two to the store -- in that area of town, there are plenty of young black folks walking around. Walking in a quiet residential street doesn't present a threat to anyone.

The assumption of innocence for a white police man is anathema to these "peaceful" protestors.

The Klan feels exactly the same way as you do. However, a presumption of innocence does not mean charges should not be filed and the case heard in a court of law. That is how our justice system is supposed to work, and not these secret tribunals designed to clear cops.

Remember, Ferguson was the police unit that beat up an innocent black man earlier this year and then charged him for bleeding on their uniforms. That's the kind of people you're dealing with.

Murdering an unarmed teenager in full view of witnesses is OK to the Klan, especially if the dead person is not white. Brown was 100 feet from the police officer's vehicle -- and with every foot of that distance the use of deadly force against an unarmed teenager who was fleeing is less justifiable. Wilson had to get out of his car to pursue Brown, shooting as he went. There was no danger to the policeman's life whatsoever while he was chasing and firing at the fleeing teenager.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

According to Yabits, pushing someone and causing them to fall to the ground is not violence. Great.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

According to Yabits, pushing someone and causing them to fall to the ground is not violence. Great.

The store clerk never was pushed to fall on the ground. He barely lost his balance. It was the clerk who first laid his hands on Brown. I suppose this would fall at the very low end of the "violence" scale. Certainly not any justification for being shot in the street.

I would imagine that there would be more Dems on the jury than Republicans, since the Gov is a Dem.

Wow. And how would that affect how a Republican district judge might select a panel for the grand jury? Although the current governor is a Democrat, Missouri is more red than blue. The state went for McCain in 2008 and for Romney in 2012. Their Congressional representation is 7 Reps and 3 Dems.

So do you still imagine there are more Dems on the grand jury?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The second time, Brown just started at him

No, he moved towards him in a menacing manner. The store clerk was clearly intimidated and backed off.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Wow. And how would that affect how a Republican district judge might select a panel for the grand jury? Although the current governor is a Democrat, Missouri is more red than blue. The state went for McCain in 2008 and for Romney in 2012. Their Congressional representation is 7 Reps and 3 Dems.

@ yabits: It's not a matter of Dem vs. GOP, the law is the law. If anything, MO is more of a "Blue Dog" Dem state, and if you know politics many of those types still believe in "Law and Order" and don't just tow the far left line. But regardless, how they vote doesn't matter. If people who LIVE THERE know what type of violence they see and read about, they will be the ones who will evaluate what they see, not the fly by night media and all of us pundits who seem to think that they know what's best for them.

In regards to your comments on the store clerk, you forget to mention the fact that he was shy in coming forth because he feared for his life if he would report all that happened prior to the event, and guess what, the last I checked that store has been burned down. So much for a rational reaction to these events. I don't blame the Gov for wanting to protect the rest of his state.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@yabits Grand Juries are an instrument of dictatorship? I think the wheels have finally come off the cart on your theories. How exactly do you propose indictments happen? Fiat from the prosecutor whom as we've seen these people don't even bother to vote for? The justice system is designed to protect the accused from the government, not railroad someone through because he made a bunch of people hopping mad.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Who did Brown injure?

So unless the store clerk had a few broken bones, this was not a crime. A shoplifting is not a crime unless there are injuries, great logic this.

There is no evidence Wilson was assaulted.

Not true.

We now know

Not true , but dont let facts get in your way.

Wow, there's a bizarre use of words. Based on your past posts, you have an obsession with and are terrified by a big black man.

Which posts are those, the ones on the incident involving a big black man attacking a police officer, or did I say the same thing about 9/11. For the record I dont think that was done by a big black man.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Land of the Free.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Note that the only element actively threatening violence is the Klan -- who are staunchly supporting the DA and the police officer. Like white racists everywhere, they believe the unarmed 18-year-old being executed in the street was what he had coming to him.

And then you have racists like Holder, Sharpton, Jackson and Obama that support the literal lynching of Wilson regardless whether he was justified in shooting Brown or not.

An organized group of computer hackers have hacked into the KKK's account and has been publishing the names of the members of this shadowy group in the St. Louis area. Wonder if any cops will show up on the roles.

Funny thing is, when you look at the Democratic Party and many of the pundits on msnbc trafficking in racism is a daily mantra.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Pretty sure the usual culprits will be there trying to incite the people to riot. If the National Guard wasn't called up the protest would turn violent and the looters would be out in force trying to get anything they could.

Hope the Governor doesn't tie the hands of the National Guard and gives a shoot to kill order for all looters.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Can I ask in which world does any of what Brown did deserve him to be killed while he was surrounding ?

Absolutely none. I actually think that those who tell us anyone deserves to be killed for any crime without any sense of hierarchy when it comes to the gravity of such crimes are the scariest out there. Basically you are advocating for a Justice that doesn't have any limits. How scary. As long as it doesn't touch you in any way or shape, I guess…

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The store clerk was clearly intimidated and backed off.

Yes, the store clerk "backed off" because he headed to confront Brown again. (Brown's prior "brush-aside" barely dissuaded him.)

So unless the store clerk had a few broken bones, this was not a crime.

You used the term "to lethal effect." If the clerk was not physically injured in any way, there was no "lethal effect." As for the crime of shoplifting, it either has to be witnessed by someone who makes an arrest, or the store has to file charges. None of that happened. Without a formal charge being filed, the police can't hold a person on an allegation of shoplifting.

Grand Juries are an instrument of dictatorship? I think the wheels have finally come off the cart on your theories. How exactly do you propose indictments happen?

You are living in a dream world. Again, quoting the Charlotte Observer from this year -- which is very typical of how grand juries work in reality and not in your Fantasyland: "During a single four-hour workday last week, a Mecklenburg County grand jury heard 276 cases and handed down 276 indictments. That means the 18 jurors heard evidence, asked questions, weighed whether the charges merit a trial, then voted on the indictments – all at the average rate of one case every 52 seconds."

This is not theory; it's reality. At the federal level, less than one in 2,000 indictments are overturned by a grand jury. Some protection. The concept and actual practice of grand juries has to be revisited. It should be left to idiots who believe that they're working just fine.

And then you have racists like Holder, Sharpton, Jackson and Obama that support the literal lynching of Wilson

Witness that this is bass4funk's impassioned justification of Klan activities. Notice also that anyone who believes there is probable cause for a public trial is actually supporting a "literal lynching." Imagine that: secret tribunals controlled by one person are acceptable, but public trials are not.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Thank you JT for articles like this. At least we have a place for discussion. I don't care how tall or big the person is, as someone wrote, shooting is no substitute for the law and the right to a fair and unbiased trial. We are not supposed to have police officers who gun down people, except in self defense. An 18 year old young man was killed. I do not accept for a moment that there could be different degrees of justice based on race or demographics for citizens of the United States of America. Laws are meant to protect all citizens, equally. If not, we have some serious introspection to do. Is it possible that within the USA, some people as the saying goes are, "more equal than others?" We need to spell that out if it is the case that laws do not apply to all people equally.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I see the second guessing has begun even before the grand jury announces it's result. Of course they have access to information that we really don't but every expert on JT is ready with their opinion. Oh well, let the games (and riots?) begin. Seems to be a foregone conclusion that somebody isn't going to be happy and if it's the "protesters" then history shows that there will be trouble, not peaceful marches. Why is that ironic?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Mennonite Maiden

I am often amazed at how much in obvious denial some people are. The death of a human being -- as in this case -- ought to be of paramount importance here. I mean at one moment you're walking down the street and roughly 90 seconds later you're lying dead in it with two shots to the head -- 100 feet from the police officer's vehicle??

Yes, almost as bad as this public execution by an out-of-control cop is how people bend over backwards to try to justify it. All people are asking for is that the police face a trial by a real jury -- where witnesses can swear under oath and be cross-examined. That's all.

This D.A. is an entrenched member of white society in Missouri. His father was a cop who was killed in the line of duty by an African-American. He wouldn't recuse himself, and the governor -- a Democrat -- didn't have the stones to replace him. He's thinking about his next election too. That's why he's declared this state of emergency.

But if the people who are opposed to all this don't organize and mobilize themselves by voting and running candidates, the types like this governor and this D.A. -- and that clown-mayor of Ferguson -- are who we're going to be left with. There are plenty of people of all types who are sickened by this.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

shot him down like a dog.

killing people like dogs

killed like dogs.

What’s with you people and killing dogs? What is the significance of the dog? Is it possible to kill a dog like a human?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I see the second guessing has begun even before the grand jury announces it's result.

We are confronted with the grand jury process -- and I never really knew that they acted as such a rubber stamp for a DA. People have tried to dispute that, but the stats show that grand juries rarely overrule a DA.

Of course they have access to information that we really don't

Wow. The information that they have that we do not comes via the police department. Do you actually, seriously believe the police are going to present information in a way that incriminates one of their own? Keep in mind there's no one there to cross-examine it -- and the policeman involved is very much alive and able to tell one version. Brown is not. Who is going to present Brown's side of the events? The DA? Are you kidding?

Outside of what the police presented, the grand jury probably has less access to information pertaining to dead kid's side than we in the public have. What would make you think they have more?

Go back to those white construction workers who witnessed Brown's final execution and their reactions to it. I am speaking of the phone video of their reaction at the time of the shooting -- followed by what they have described in public. Was the grand jury given access to that? Or did the DA decide to leave it out, based on his own biases? I believe it is fair to speculate about that -- prior to their final decision.

Seems to be a foregone conclusion that somebody isn't going to be happy

Seriously, if Wilson is indicted, who besides the Klan and other white racists is going to be unhappy? Wilson is still innocent until proven guilty -- and he'll get his day in court, as will the witnesses testifying on behalf of the victim. This is how the justice system is supposed to work. If they don't overcharge (as they did in the Zimmerman case), there's a chance that justice will be done. If it ends up going against Wilson, I can understand how white supremacists who approve killing young black men who aren't angels would feel disgruntled.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Let be honest here, more than likely Officer Wilson won't be indicted. 3/4 of the jury is white, the odds are in favor of Officer Wilson alone.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am hoping more of the details of what really happen come out with this verdict.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for the crime of shoplifting, it either has to be witnessed by someone who makes an arrest, or the store has to file charges.

Are you even following yourself here? The shoplifting was reported.

If the clerk was not physically injured in any way, there was no "lethal effect."

Did you watch the video where Brown swats away the clerk as if he was a fly. The clerk valued his life more than a pack of cigars, that's the only reason he was not injured. Officer Wilson was not that lucky.

"Lethal Force" my a$$.

Real compelling argument.

Their KKK is the lowest of the scum.

Any particular reason you need to bring this into the discussion?

But then don't let logic and reason get in the way of an extreme one-sided viewpoint.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@ yabits: A recent story about a poll taken back in Sept shows that 1 in 3 Ferguson Black residents felt that the cop was justified in the shooting. So there is not a "unanimous belief" among Blacks in the area as the media wants people to believe.

shot him down like a dog

In regards to those who are talking about someone being "shot like a dog" it has a lot to do with the final scenes in the movie and book "Old Yellow" about a boy who had to put his favorite dog down because the dog had rabies. Similar to the old saying about shooting horses with a broken leg.

But as that saying relates to this situation, where is the outrage of the Black on Black shootings that occur in these areas. I can see if the police were just rounding up Blacks for no reason like was discovered in a small Texas town a few years ago, but you need to take a look at the crime statistics and see where the problems are. If Micahel Brown were walking down the sidewalk, not the middle of the street in traffic, and was gunned down for no apparent reason, then I think the cop should be prosecuted, regardless if Brown had a criminal past or not. But in this case, he was resisting arrest, and ran away and where the confusion comes into play was he returning back to fight again or surrender. Those who say that they would not shoot or the police should not shoot, put yourself in that situation and be honest about what you would do. An 18 year old young man his size can still do some harm to another adult male, so I don't think the cop was too far wrong with what he did.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It is strange that 2 shots were fired inside of the police officer's car, which seems to indicate that there was a struggle for the officer's weapon before the fatal shooting of Brown took place outside of the officer's vehicle. Of course, this is only one piece of a very complicated and mixed up puzzle, but it would support the argument that police officer Wilson had been caught off guard and surprised before fatally shooting Brown.

On the other hand, is it possible to argue that both Wilson and Brown were both in the wrong? In hindsight, both of them could have and should have acted and behaved differently leading to a more peaceful outcome.

At the end of the day, however, the public has to respect the investigative process and the grand jury's decision whatever that may be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The leaders of the American black community have propagated the victim mentality so much that most in the new generation take it as one of their rights.

If you attack a police officer you can expect to get shot.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If you attack a police officer you can expect to get shot.

If the officer shot him while in the car, that would be justified. But to shoot him after he is running away, and not posing a threat anymore, is unjustified.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Hey folks, put your own prejudices and racisms aside(ALL SIDES) and let the wheels of justice do their grinding.

I would hope that no one is actively seeking violence. That's not what American culture is supposed to be about.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Unless you're living in LaLaLand, don't expect justice from a jury with a white majority.

yet you don't see these lowlives demanding for pedophiles and rapists to be treated in the same fashion..

@ Mennonite Maiden: In the state of LA, child molesters can receive the death penalty. Before you go and blame "whitey" for building more rehad centers, and privacy protections, you need to see who was leading the charge on those issues. It was the white liberals in groups like the ACLU, and other "grass roots" organizations that take the lead in defending the druggies, peodophiles and others that seem to come away with more protections than the victims they inflict their harm on, all in the name of "fairness" and the new movement "restorative justice." When people want to impose tougher penalites to criminals, those very same groups will deride them as "racist" etc, and if you happen to be a minority who hold those beliefs, then out come the "Uncle Tom" name calling and we get ourselfes into the name calling and arguing that really gets nothing accomplished.

A teen physically engaging a cop should not carry a death sentence, but if the teen doesn't want to get shot, maybe they shouldn't be assualting someone with a gun. If the police pull random minorities off the streets and mistreat them then of course they should be prosecuted. But in this case, we don't have that situation. But at least, they are actually going through all the evidence and factors to try to determine the root cause, and not just jump to some self serving conclusion.

@ John Galt, very good points. We can agree to disagree on this forum, but we all must hope that the right thing will be done and justice will be served.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yes, the store clerk "backed off" because he headed to confront Brown again. (Brown's prior "brush-aside" barely dissuaded him.)

Ok, so that's what you think you saw.

You used the term "to lethal effect." If the clerk was not physically injured in any way, there was no "lethal effect." As for the crime of shoplifting, it either has to be witnessed by someone who makes an arrest, or the store has to file charges. None of that happened. Without a formal charge being filed, the police can't hold a person on an allegation of shoplifting.

Yes, they can, if the officer feels that the person is in any way a possible suspect, they are allowed to detain an individual for a certain amount of time, if their is probable suspicion. Also as big and huge as Brown was, whether the store clerk was injured or not, he was being shoved aside with Zero regard for the clerk, cocky and confident. That in itself is a physical assault.

This is not theory; it's reality. At the federal level, less than one in 2,000 indictments are overturned by a grand jury. Some protection. The concept and actual practice of grand juries has to be revisited. It should be left to idiots who believe that they're working just fine.

If there is pause or they can't prove that there isn't enough evidence to issuing an indictment then why should the GJ NOT overturn an indictment?

Witness that this is bass4funk's impassioned justification of Klan activities. Notice also that anyone who believes there is probable cause for a public trial is actually supporting a "literal lynching." Imagine that: secret tribunals controlled by one person are acceptable, but public trials are not.

So when many on the left and racists like Sharpton, Jackson, Holder scream racism, its justifiable and factual, but where was your outrage when last month a Florida elderly was trying to help feed the homeless and the man was threatened with being arrested for breaking the law. I had no idea, feeding the needy is a crime. Where were Sharpton, Jackson and Holder? Oh, I forgot, the man was White, that's out of their sphere.

Thank you JT for articles like this. At least we have a place for discussion. I don't care how tall or big the person is, as someone wrote, shooting is no substitute for the law and the right to a fair and unbiased trial. We are not supposed to have police officers who gun down people, except in self defense. An 18 year old young man was killed.

How so? You may not care, but the other person getting slam down might think otherwise. A police officer has every right to use force on an individual if his life or the innocent people involved are being assaulted. Wilson had every right to defend himself against a thug who decided to take it upon himself thinking he could bully and pummel anyone he wanted and get away with it. Brown was responsible for his own death, had he listened and followed the officers orders, he might very well still be alive today.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

A recent story about a poll taken back in Sept shows that 1 in 3 Ferguson Black residents felt that the cop was justified in the shooting. So there is not a "unanimous belief" among Blacks in the area as the media wants people to believe.

Polls of the general population do not matter, unless, that is, all those who are asked actually witnessed the event. Among the people who witnessed it, excluding the police officer (who is not an independent witness) there are blacks and whites -- and all of them agree that the police officer was not justified in shooting Brown.

I have not read of any independent eyewitness to the event to felt the shooting was justified. So much for your "poll"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

For those who are debating from a racially prejudiced perspective (many here), I'd like to ask: Which are you interested in, Justice or Vengeance? Hasn't there been enough race-baiting rhetoric these past several years?

Look, there was probably wrong on the parts of both individuals, and until both "sides" see that fact and then extract their own prejudices then injustices aagainst all will continue.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Polls of the general population do not matter, unless, that is, all those who are asked actually witnessed the event.

@ yabits: I bet if the polls said that 99% of the Black residents in the area thought the cop was guilty, you would probably be jumping up and down trying to make sure that those people are appointed to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is composed of people in St. Louis county, so not just the city of Ferguson, so I am sure if they return a verdict not to your liking, you will say that the general populations opinions do matter in the bias of the results.

As far as your not reading anything about eyewitnesses not coming forth saying that they thought it was justified, I guess you need to harken back to the original cashier at the quick stop where Brown started off, and how afraid he was to be named and present his story. Same thing with the witnesses, why would you come out with the truth that may not go with the pervailing mood and subject yourself to getting your life in danger or risk harm to your property.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I bet if the polls said that 99% of the Black residents in the area thought the cop was guilty...

In matters like this, I don't care one iota what polls say; only what actual eyewitnesses have to say. There are some areas of life where polls are very important and helpful, but not in matters like this one.

you would probably be jumping up and down trying to make sure that those people are appointed to the Grand Jury

The more I have learned about it, the more I have come to see the grand jury process -- as it is currently implemented in the vast majority of the United States -- is woefully inadequate and a prime reason why our justice system is in such horrendous shape.

The Grand Jury is composed of people in St. Louis county, so not just the city of Ferguson, so I am sure if they return a verdict not to your liking...

If they are composed of people as clearly as deficient in their ability to think and to reason as the person whose post I am responding to, how would any person be satisfied with where it could lead? Mental defectives on juries might return a verdict or two that I agree with, but I'd never like the fact that they sit on juries in the first place. Why do I say this? Your very next paragraph:

I guess you need to harken back to the original cashier at the quick stop where Brown started off, and how afraid he was to be named and present his story

The cashier did not witness the shooting. There were two white construction workers -- not part of the neighborhood -- who did, and what they tell matches what the other eyewitnesses have said: Brown turned slowly after running with his hands raised in the position of surrender. The cop never shouted any command that Brown could comply with -- he just kept shooting at him as Brown was going down to the ground on his hands and knees, exposing the top of his head to the line of fire. Every single witness who saw it has been traumatized by it. None of them have Brown -- who was 100 feet from the officer's vehicle, turning back to rush at the officer.

It is a sign of really deficient thinking, given way to wild flights of fancy, to believe that somewhere there exists a witness who saw something completely different than these six or so independent eyewitnesses -- and I'm excluding Dorian Johnson along with the officer -- but who is just too afraid to come forward to tell it. As one of them is heard to say, just minutes later: "They shot him for no reason."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

An ironic news item was reported in Ferguson about one of the protestors at a "No Justic No Peace" rally. It seems that while chanting "F" the police her car was stolen. Not a major high end brand but a Saturn with over 250,000 miles as was tweeted by the victim who thought that no one would want such a car. Oh well, I guess they didn't get the enlightenment memo.

@ yabits: You seem to revel in trying to name call those who don't agree with you. I guess your ultra liberal beliefs don't really hold true. As far as eyewitness accounts go, you do remember that the guy that was with him when all of this happened has said pretty much that what they were doing was as the police had put together. It would seem that if you have an eye witness who was there, and yet you still need to take it to a Grand Jury tells me that the evidence would point to the cop will not face charges, and the Prosecuter and other agencies are doing this to not make it seem that it was not transparent.

Listening to a reporter interview a neighbor of Brown, he (the neighbor) firmly believes that Brown had actually paid for the cigars in question and that the store owner was misinformed, etc. So if you want to call out people with deficient thinking, I would suggest you go there and do a few one on one interviews with some there, even with all of the evidence put in the news who will still think this way and you would not have to wonder why all of the commotion is going on.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Any particular reason I don't need to?

Mennonite:

Not at all, do bring in the Black liberation army, Black panthers and why stop at that, bring in Greepeace too.

Worshiping criminals just because they belong to a particular race isn't going to make them any less evil. Brown was a petty thief who stepped out of his league in attacking a policeman and paid for it with his life.

Whether he was going to college or helped out his grandma does not change the fact that he was a criminal.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I am sort of wondering if all these violent protesters who are convinced they just know exactly what happened and who is guilty have done thorough research of the case, and when and how. Pray tell, they are not simply making up their judgement based on the race of the people involved?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And since when being a petty thief warrants being gunned down by an out of control cop?

The very moment he attacks a cop, tries to snatch his gun, walks away and then turns back to attack him again.

Anybody of any race who tries to do that deserves to get shot, but those of us drenched in rivers of victim-hood spewed by their leaders day and night, cannot understand it.

don't you ever feel like going back where you truly belong?

The first human came out of Ethopia's Afshar desert, so maybe that is where I truly belong.

But I need to earn a living, feed my family, send my kids to school. So not planning to go there anytime soon.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You seem to revel in trying to name call those who don't agree with you.

No. When I witness obviously defective reasoning, I point it out and explain exactly why. The problem with severely flawed thinking is that it gets a person in trouble again and again and again. What is amazing to me is that an unarmed teenager -- in the process of fleeing from a cop who accosted him for jaywalking -- is shot dead in the street in full view of eyewitnesses, and so many people can't think rationally about it. These are the same people who reported that the cop suffered a "shattered eye socket." (I can't see a mark on the cop on the videos taken on the scene and two hours later at the police station. I'm betting the cop has as many marks on him as the store clerk.)

you do remember that the guy that was with him when all of this happened has said pretty much that what they were doing was as the police had put together.

You seem to be referring to Dorian Johnson. And, no: To this date, the Ferguson Police have not issued a standard police incident report of the shooting. Are you really coming out in support of Dorian Johnson's view of the events? In brief, your statement makes very little sense.

Funny how you dropped your "witnesses afraid to testify angle" as soon as the white construction workers are mentioned.

Listening to a reporter interview a neighbor of Brown, he (the neighbor) firmly believes that Brown had actually paid for the cigars in question

This is utterly irrelevant to everything. That "neighbor" of Brown was not an eyewitness to the police killing him in the street. However, your bringing it up does serve one useful purpose, below.

It would seem that if you have an eye witness who was there, and yet you still need to take it to a Grand Jury tells me that the evidence would point to the cop will not face charges, and the Prosecuter and other agencies are doing this to not make it seem that it was not transparent.

It seems that way to you because you lack understanding of the legal process in St. Louis County, Missouri. While Brown's neighbor may exhibit one type of deficient reasoning ability, statements like "and yet you still need to take it to a Grand Jury" clearly demonstrate another type.

walks away and then turns back to attack him again.

See? Another "broken eye socket" version of events. If you look through Ulysses's posts, you'll find a morbid obsession with Brown's size. She ignores the fact that it was the cop who initiated the confrontation, putting his vehicle in reverse to get within striking range of Brown and his friend -- after initially driving away. The eyewitnesses' attention was first drawn to the scene by the sound of the vehicle's tires and brakes.

This would indicate that the cop's state of mind was agitated -- and he was not in complete control of his emotions. Brown didn't "walk away" -- all eyewitnesses (and the police) report them running. Why does Ulysses say "walks?" My guess is that there is nothing more repulsive and worth of the death penalty to her than a big black guy who stands up to a belligerent cop and just "walks away." Defy and disrespect a stupid cop and just walk away.

As soon as Brown broke away from the vehicle and was on the run, we have an entirely new situation. The cop was now on the pursuit and in no danger whatsoever for his life. He had not yet made the decision to fire the fatal shots. At this point, he has no reason whatsoever to use deadly force. And so, like the shattered eye socket lie, the racist supporters of the cop -- the ones who simply can't bear the idea of a big black guy smacking him and getting away with it -- have to concoct a new lie: After being shot at least two or three times, and running away from the cop, Brown decides to turn and attack him.

Unfortunately for the racists, not a single eyewitness -- and there were over six of them, from different races -- who clearly didn't see that. They saw a guy shot, arms in the process of being raised to surrender and then slumping to the ground, exposing the top of his head to the line of fire.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I have not read of any independent eyewitness to the event to felt the shooting was justified. So much for your "poll

Just because YOU don't believe it, doesn't mean,cthe shooting was NOT justified.

The more I have learned about it, the more I have come to see the grand jury process -- as it is currently implemented in the vast majority of the United States -- is woefully inadequate and a prime reason why our justice system is in such horrendous shape.

Now you know you would have never said that if the events would have gone your way, knowingly. Come on, Yabits. Lol!

If they are composed of people as clearly as deficient in their ability to think and to reason as the person whose post I am responding to, how would any person be satisfied with where it could lead? Mental defectives on juries might return a verdict or two that I agree with, but I'd never like the fact that they sit on juries in the first place. Why do I say this? Your very next paragraph

You just did a Jonathan Gruber.

The cashier did not witness the shooting. There were two white construction workers -- not part of the neighborhood -- who did, and what they tell matches what the other eyewitnesses have said: Brown turned slowly after running with his hands raised in the position of surrender. The cop never shouted any command that Brown could comply with -- he just kept shooting at him as Brown was going down to the ground on his hands and knees, exposing the top of his head to the line of fire. Every single witness who saw it has been traumatized by it. None of them have Brown -- who was 100 feet from the officer's vehicle, turning back to rush at the officer.

And you still don't definitiv know all the facts and are equally in the dark as we all are.

It is a sign of really deficient thinking, given way to wild flights of fancy, to believe that somewhere there exists a witness who saw something completely different than these six or so independent eyewitnesses -- and I'm excluding Dorian Johnson along with the officer -- but who is just too afraid to come forward to tell it. As one of them is heard to say, just minutes later: "They shot him for no reason."

From the looks of it, it seems like Wilson had every right to use justifiable force, given the circumstances.

This would indicate that the cop's state of mind was agitated -- and he was not in complete control of his emotions. Brown didn't "walk away" -- all eyewitnesses (and the police) report them running. Why does Ulysses say "walks?" My guess is that there is nothing more repulsive and worth of the death penalty to her than a big black guy who stands up to a belligerent cop and just "walks away." Defy and disrespect a stupid cop and just walk away.

Or that the Black was belligerent in thinking he had every right to disobey an officer, thereby sealing his own fate.

As soon as Brown broke away from the vehicle and was on the run, we have an entirely new situation. The cop was now on the pursuit and in no danger whatsoever for his life.

There were two shots fired in the officers vehicle, meaning there was a struggle and gun residue on Browns clothes, close encounter, seems like he was in danger.

He had not yet made the decision to fire the fatal shots. At this point, he has no reason whatsoever to use deadly force.

After being pummeled by a giant kid, he knew he probably wouldn't survive another attack leaving him with no choice, but to use deadly force.

And so, like the shattered eye socket lie, the racist supporters of the cop -- the ones who simply can't bear the idea of a big black guy smacking him and getting away with it -- have to concoct a new lie: After being shot at least two or three times, and running away from the cop, Brown decides to turn and attack him.

So what about the lie about the thug being a gentle giant, innocent and incapable of harming a fly? The racists would try to have you believe that in painting a solid picture that Brown was the innocent victim, when the truth of the matter is, Brown had full control over the incident which ended his life. Either Brown was a complete idiot, incompetent or just didn't care.

Unfortunately for the racists, not a single eyewitness -- and there were over six of them, from different races -- who clearly didn't see that. They saw a guy shot, arms in the process of being raised to surrender and then slumping to the ground, exposing the top of his head to the line of fire

Complete conjecture, we have no idea if he had his hands up or not, even Dr Baden said so. Either way, the race agitators care only about one thing, divide and polarize the country and lynch a possible police officer that from what it seems to be an innocent person that did what he was supposed to do.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@bass4funk

The fact that you try to rebut so many of my points is that you feel they are logical, rational, and therefore worthy of rebuttal. It is very unfortunate that I can't say the same about any of your illogical rantings. I would, however, like to point out a couple of things:

and lynch a possible police officer

Earlier in this thread, which readers can verify, you claimed that President Obama and AG Holder were after a "literal lynching" of Wilson. Does any adult in America have to be instructed on just what those words mean?

More important, what is being sought by the vast majority of people who are engaged in this on the side of the dead kid is for charges to be filed against the police officer, and that he go to a formal, public trial. I find it fascinating that a formal trial by jury, the hallmark of our legal system, would be equated by some with lynching. There is no rational discussion to be had with those who take that view.

So what about the lie about the thug being a gentle giant, innocent and incapable of harming a fly?

There is no record of Brown ever having physically harmed anyone, as big as he was. I am positive the racists have dug through his records looking for something just as they did with Trayvon Martin, and have come up empty.

But the main point is this: Only a hypocritical devil would require a standard of "angelic" behavior of others in order to avoid being murdered by a police officer in the street.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And so the Occupy Movement Traveling Road Show is gathering in the masses and Saint Louis Mo. is in the crosshairs. If you look at the different groups that are involved in the preparation for this civil demonstration, you see a pretty wide range of special interests represented. A large number of them are there not seeking justice for Michael Brown, specifically. They are casting a wider net and going after the perpetrators of the systemic injustice that permeates American society today. The events in Ferguson are the catalysis and an opportunity.

Looking at the list of proposed protest sites compiled by the event organizers, a lot make perfect sense from the “Justice for Mike” standpoint. But a number of other sites are clearly targets of the Occupy Movement. All the big corporations and symbols of greed and white privilege. There are very few social issues that won’t have their bones picked clean in the coming days.

With the level of energy and resources that are going into the preparations it’s fairly certain that no matter what the outcome from the grand jury, indictment or not, there is going to a party in Missouri. St. Louis prepare to be Occupied.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The fact that you try to rebut so many of my points is that you feel they are logical, rational, and therefore worthy of rebuttal.

Actually, I dont, that's your interpretation of the facts.

It is very unfortunate that I can't say the same about any of your illogical rantings.

Most ideological liberals say exactly the same things, where I come from, we call that denial.

Earlier in this thread, which readers can verify, you claimed that President Obama and AG Holder were after a "literal lynching" of Wilson. Does any adult in America have to be instructed on just what those words mean?

I stand by my comments and I meant what I said. Yabits, if the truth hurts....

More important, what is being sought by the vast majority of people who are engaged in this on the side of the dead kid is for charges to be filed against the police officer, and that he go to a formal, public trial.

Thank God our justice system doesn't work the way you or other liberals wish it to work, but the way our founding fathers intended to work.

I find it fascinating that a formal trial by jury, the hallmark of our legal system, would be equated by some with lynching. There is no rational discussion to be had with those who take that view.

Translation: if anyone doesn't think Brown was a gentle giant, even though he bashed a cop, the heck with you all.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If you look through Ulysses's posts, you'll find a morbid obsession with Brown's size.

Brown's size is very much relevant here, he used it as a weapon.

cop who initiated the confrontation

Thats what the cops do to those who break law. Brown was walking in the middle of the street, Wilson had to take action.

Defy and disrespect a stupid cop and just walk away.

So its fine to steal, attack a store clerk, walk in the middle of the street, but a cop, just because he is white, cannot take any action.

the ones who simply can't bear the idea of a big black guy smacking him and getting away with it

You contradict yourself again, so now Brown smacked the cop but he still wasn't violent. Great logic.

You refer to me as a 'she', even though my handle is taken from a well known character in literature. I am guessing no college education?

Thats the crowd your rabble rousing, racist leaders prey on.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Brown was walking in the middle of the street, Wilson had to take action.

LOL! Canfield is a very quiet narrow residential street. From the very start, Wilson acted like a belligerent bully, and anything but a "public servant." And 90 or so seconds after Wilson started his aggressive confrontation, an unarmed kid would be lying dead in the street -- 100 feet away from Wilson's car.

It is not that Wilson could not take action. The range of actions available to him were nearly without limit. He could have tried an initial approach of common decency and respect. Instead, he chose to act like a brutal, puffed-up thug. And the racists applaud him for it.

You contradict yourself again, so now Brown smacked the cop but he still wasn't violent. Great logic.

I am hypothesizing a worse-case scenario. There is no physical evidence in the videos of Wilson that indicate any injury to him -- showing the "shattered eye socket" crowd to be complete liars. It was Wilson who initiated the physical confrontation. If he happened to get smacked in the course of it, he more than had it coming to him.

As someone correctly said, if Brown would have been hit with a fatal shot at the car during the physical confrontation, he also would have deserved his wounds. It takes two to tango.

But once Brown broke free of Wilson's hold on him, and Wilson had shot him for the first time, Brown turned and ran from the confrontation that Wilson initiated. Brown increased his distance from Wilson and represented no threat to him whatsoever at that moment. Wilson kept firing as he chased Brown, missing him except for one shot that grazed Brown's arm. Anyone who thinks Wilson was correct to use lethal force at that moment is the type of low-life who would endorse murder.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Brown's size is very much relevant here, he used it as a weapon.

How does anyone use their size as a weapon from 100ft away?

Brown was walking in the middle of the street, Wilson had to take action.

I walk in the middle of the street a lot. Nice quiet leafy residential streets, a vehicle goes by maybe a few times an hour if that. Maybe I should consider myself lucky that no local public servant has ever taken it upon himself to accost me with a barrage of effing and blinding, or shoot me from a distance, after all it seems I deserve to be shot down in the street for the heinous crime of walking in the road. Maybe I should consider myself lucky I don't have the size, otherwise I might well have been justifiably shot through the head years ago.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

From the very start, Wilson acted like a belligerent bully, and anything but a "public servant."

Not true at all, but then I have learnt that facts are only a hindrance to your agenda.

The range of actions available to him were nearly without limit.

He could always have offered the other eye socket, right!!

There is no physical evidence

And yet you follow it up with a second by second account of what supposedly happened. Do you even read what you post?

Only a racist snow ape would think like that...but hey!

Wow, when you run out of arguments you start calling names, very mature. What's up with the KKK fixation? You need help and fast.

How does anyone use their size as a weapon from 100ft away?

Slow day today, or a heavy lunch. The 100 ft gap started contracted when Brown turned back to attack Wilson again.

I walk in the middle of the street a lot

Do you also steal a lot?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The 100 ft gap started contracted when Brown turned back to attack Wilson again.

The only problem with your fantasy is that not one eyewitness to the scene supports it. Every one has Brown stopping and turning around to face the advancing Wilson -- who kept firing. Wilson was finally able to hit his now-stationary target.

(While Brown was fleeing away from the out-of-control cop, Wilson kept missing him save for the one shot that grazed Brown's arm.) The two white construction workers have Brown raising his hands as he turned around -- making no move to attack the officer -- and was hit with another set of rounds which caused him to start to crumple to the ground, exposing the top of his head to the fusillade. It was Wilson who kept approaching Brown.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It was Wilson who kept approaching Brown.

The only problem with this fantasy is that no witness supports it.

The two white construction workers have Brown raising his hands as he turned around --

The problem with this fantasy is that the autopsy does not support it. Brown was hit on the forearm and unless the bullet was a boomerang or ricocheted from thin air, it could not have done so.

BTW I did not bother checking the race of the forensic pathologists, I am sure they do their jobs irrespective of their race.

So two fantasies stuck down and I say 'Bring them on'.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The only problem with this fantasy is that no witness supports it.

Every witness supports it. Simple common sense supports it. Do you understand what common sense is? Let's see:

A) Brown's body was 100 feet away from Wilson's vehicle; B) The eyewitnesses have Wilson continuing to advance closer to Brown, firing as he went, until he got around 15 to 20 feet, where the last shots were fired. Common sense would dictate that Wilson, in order to get 80 or so feet from his vehicle in Brown's direction had to be advancing on Brown.

The problem with this fantasy is that the autopsy does not support it. Brown was hit on the forearm and unless the bullet was a boomerang or ricocheted from thin air, it could not have done so.

The forensic pathologist who performed the public autopsy, Dr. Baden, clearly said that the wound to the forearm was a graze wound -- with no discernible exit or entry direction. Therefore, he said, it could have come from either direction. He also reminded the audience that the arm is a very mobile and flexible joint while in motion (as in running , or the act of turning around in the process of raising hands.) This is why the 6 or 7 eyewitness accounts help to fill in the details.

It is abundantly clear you don't understand the presentation of Dr. Baden of his autopsy at all.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Every witness supports it.

Then you follow up with

Simple common sense supports it.

So tell me which one supports it, if you have eyewitnesses why do you want common sense to also support it. As usual you contradict yourself. So my question again, do you even read what you post. When you try to dress up a lie, you realize that any amount of clothes you put on it are not enough.

Then you present a CSI like analysis which is laughable at the best, a juvenile fabrication at its worst.

It is abundantly clear you don't understand the presentation of Dr. Baden of his autopsy at all.

Dr. Baden conducted an autopsy for the Brown's family, His findings have been shown to be biased and totally wrong. His theory about the arms in motion has been laughed off as a work of pure fantasy. Since he was paid by the Brown family that is not a surprise and yet you put his autopsy above independent reliable ones.

Now my question to you is how many more lies will you spew to protect a cheap common criminal who ran out of luck the moment he took on a police officer.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So tell me which one supports it, if you have eyewitnesses why do you want common sense to also support it.

In the event there are those who don't believe what over six eyewitnesses reported: a cop running with a gun shooting at a fleeing unarmed kid wearing flip-flop sandals, which made it easier for the cop to get closer to the kid. Brown didn't "walk" away from the vehicle and attain 100 feet in a few seconds; he ran, and the cop ran after him. Not a single eyewitness corroborates the claim that Brown tried to attack the cop after he turned around.

His findings have been shown to be biased and totally wrong.

I think one of your own quotes is quite appropriate here to apply yourself: "When you try to dress up a lie, you realize that any amount of clothes you put on it are not enough."

His theory about the arms in motion has been laughed off as a work of pure fantasy.

So, a person running does not move their arms? See why common sense had to be applied? Readers can see that your problem is that you can't supply any quotes from what you call the "independent reliable ones" to back up your statements.

It should be noted that Dr. Baden was specifically called by the Grand Jury to testify only a week or so ago. If his work was "laughed off," why would he be called in? Weren't the "independent reliable" autopsies sufficient? By the way, you can't really quote from any "official" autopsy since it has not been released to the public. So all you can do is spout conjecture about what was leaked to the St. Louis Dispatch.

In that regard, the paper consulted with professional forensics examiner, Judy Melinek, who has expressed the opinion that the gunshot wound to the back of Micheal Brown's forearm could have come as he was running away. Several eyewitnesses have the fleeing Brown stopping suddenly after a jerking motion, which they interpreted as his being hit or grazed by a round.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Not a single eyewitness corroborates the claim that Brown tried to attack the cop after he turned around.

Again not true, it is turning out to be a habit for your to quote incorrect facts to put up an incorrect defense? Check how many eyewitnesses were there and what all they stated and do not pick up the account which suits your agenda the most.

I think one of your own quotes is quite appropriate

So you are starting to run out of arguments, when name calling did not work, you copy my quotes, Great going.

So, a person running does not move their arms?

LOL, this comment shows that you have not even understood what the biased pathologist was reporting and yet you try to quote it in your defense. Arms will move while running but in a specific pattern. You seem to suggest that somehow how forearms suddenly faced the person who was behind him. Unless Brown, in addition to being a petty criminal, was also a contortionist , this does not seem to be possible.

So all you can do is spout conjecture about what was leaked to the St. Louis Dispatch.

I would like to quote 'those who live in glass houses.....'. Your whole theory is more fit for 'Aesop's fables, than for a discussion. You create fantasies and pass it on as a theory and start calling names when you get called out. You quote witnesses as if in addition to eyes, they have a slow motion recorder plugged inside their brains to play back each of Brown's last moments. Naive is too mild a word here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Again not true, it is turning out to be a habit for your to quote incorrect facts to put up an incorrect defense?

Well, the quickest way to demonstrate the statement is "incorrect" is to name a witness and quote them saying they saw Brown charging or attacking Wilson after Brown had distanced himself 100 feet from Wilson's vehicle.

But you can't do that, can you?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

After an initial scuffle in the car, the officer did not fire until Brown turned back toward him.

Brown put his arms out to his sides but never raised his hands high.

Brown staggered toward Wilson despite commands to stop.

The two were about 20 to 25 feet apart when the last shots were fired.

This was just one of the accounts, which debunks everything you have said.

Let me guess what you will do next, call this witness a liar and call me names.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

This was just one of the accounts, which debunks everything you have said.

Name the witness, so the account can be verified.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Name the witness, so the account can be verified.

LOL As most with common sense know that most witnesses dont give their names to the media. Next you will ask me for his address, passport number, his wife's name, children's school also?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Let me guess what you will do next, call this witness a liar and call me names.

I needed to verify where this "witness report" came from. Now that I have found it, let readers see more details about what this witness said:

The man, whose name has been withheld, from St. Louis, Missouri, says that the teenager did not have his hands above his head when Wilson shot at him, but rather 'out to his sides.'

He also said Brown 'staggered toward Wilson despite commands to stop' and that 'the two were about 20 to 25 feet apart when the last shots were fired.'

Seems to match up. Wait; there's more from this witness:

'When he stepped foot on that street, the officer told him to stop again, and he fired three shots,' said the witness. 'When he got hit, he staggered like, "Oh," and his body moved. Then he looked down.' He added, 'His hands were up like this (he gestures with arms out to the side and palms upward), and he was looking at the officer and was coming toward him trying to keep his feet and stand up. The officer took a few steps back and yelled, "Stop," again, and Michael was trying to stay on his feet.' At this point he says Brown was 20 to 25 feet away and staggering. 'As he was firing those last rounds, Michael was on his way down. We were thinking, "Oh my God, oh my God, brother, stop, stop." He was already on his way down when he fired those last shots.' The witness also said Wilson didn’t have to kill Brown. 'It went from zero to 100 like that, in the blink of an eye. ... What transpired to us, in my eyesight, was murder. Down outright murder.'

In my view, a liar is someone who tries to pass off a partial story as the whole truth. This witness you quoted supports my view of the events when his fuller testimony is revealed.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Nice call, yabits.

Looking forward to ulysses's no doubt brilliant reply....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

In my view, a liar is someone who tries to pass off a partial story as the whole truth. This witness you quoted supports my view of the events when his fuller testimony is revealed.

We will know soon enough if this witness was telling the truth or if it was just another fabricated story and a quick dismissal of a another bogus eyewitness.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This witness you quoted supports my view of the events when his fuller testimony is revealed.

I am rolling over in laughter here. the witness does not support your theory at all. Do you understand English, and I will mention again 'Do you read what you post'?

The account clearly proves Brown was not surrendering. It proves the fact that he was shot when he was heading towards Wilson. The last shot was fired when he was 20-25 feet away. Do you even understand what that means? And yet you say he supports your account!!!

You rely on

The witness also said Wilson didn’t have to kill Brown.

That is the standard reaction to somebody who has watched one human being killed.

What transpired to us, in my eyesight, was murder.

Its time to see an optician.

A liar is somebody who willfully tells an untruth, but you seem to be somebody who does not even understand what you are posting!!!!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

We will know soon enough if this witness was telling the truth or if it was just another fabricated story and a quick dismissal of a another bogus eyewitness.

First, you need to tell ulyssius to produce better witnesses. She's already embarrassed herself more than once.

Since you have accused this eyewitness of being "bogus," if it turns out their testimony is accurate, would that make you a false accuser? Can you provide the name of a single witness whose testimony has been "dismissed" by the grand jury?

No, I didn't think you could.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

First, you need to tell ulyssius to produce better witnesses.

This is getting funnier and funnier. We are not in a court, we are on a discussion forum!! Do you understand the difference?

Again you refer to me as 'she' when anybody with college education will know what 'Ulysses' means. And at least get the spelling right, that should not be hard.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Since you have accused this eyewitness of being "bogus," if it turns out their testimony is accurate, would that make you a false accuser?

Had NO, idea you were on the Grand Jury. You certainly don't know if here testimony was taken into account, nor do I. We just have to wait and see. Wilson might be indicted or he might not, now I will say, I hope they don't indict him because of public pressure the way they did in the Second Rodney King trial or OJ. Because then you would really would be making this a racial issue, more then what Sharpton and Holder already did.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@bass

Amen to that. Racial issues have no place in this, or any case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its time to see an optician.

You are claiming your "witness" needs to see an optician when they relate something you don't agree with. So, how can you be so confident about the rest of their testimony?

The account clearly proves Brown was not surrendering. It proves the fact that he was shot when he was heading towards Wilson.

"Heading" can mean various things. The fact that Brown was already shot at least three times and was stumbling -- your witness says he was stumbling -- most likely means Brown was in shock. A person stumbles when they are not in complete control, like when they're in shock. The fact that the witness says Brown was "on his way down" before the final, fatal shots were fired means he was not in any position to attack the officer. Brown was in shock, stumbling, and headed to the ground as Wilson kept firing. Your witness says just that.

Your witness -- who saw things just fine -- saw the officer murder the young kid. Executed him in the street after shooting him at least three times.

Can you produce any witness who reports seeing Brown actually trying to attack the officer from 20 to 25 feet away?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So, how can you be so confident about the rest of their testimony?

Let me quote a part of the article which you conveniently left out.

Differences in witness accounts are no surprise to researchers, who even have a name for it: the Rashomon effect.

So yes, like all other witnesses, this one is also not reliable. However you have already convicted Wilson without even bothering to check whether the witnesses are reliable or not.

most likely means Brown was in shock.

You follow similar pattern, you build up theories without any proof? Everything has to fit into your agenda.

Brown was in shock, stumbling, and headed to the ground as Wilson kept firing.

Wow, a police officer who just had his face smashed by a 6'4, 132 kgs thug, can reach that split second decision that Brown will not be able to get up.

Your witness

Your honour, he is not my witness, he is just one of the witnesses I quoted to prove your fairy tales wrong.

Can you produce any witness who reports seeing Brown actually trying to attack the officer from 20 to 25 feet away?

Your honour, if I tried I could. But since another witness might have seen an alien land and shoot Brown, I would rather not.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

You certainly don't know if here testimony was taken into account, nor do I.

If you don't know whether their testimony was taken into account, then why do you say this:

We will know soon enough if this witness was telling the truth or if it was just another fabricated story and a quick dismissal of a another bogus eyewitness.

Another fabricated story? Another bogus eyewitness?

Can you cite the name of any witness in this case whose story has been determined by the grand jury to be "fabricated" and was "quickly dismissed?"

You can't, can you? So why are you making up things?

hope they don't indict him because of public pressure

How would you know whether they did or not? Will you wait until he is indicted and then make something up again?

All indictment means is that Wilson has to face a trial by jury. He'll have every opportunity to present his case in court and have any witness against him sworn to tell the truth and to be cross-examined. I think you referred to that earlier as a "lynching."

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Can you cite the name of any witness in this case whose story has been determined by the grand jury to be "fabricated" and was "quickly dismissed?"

I can't cite, this is true and neither can you say, what will be presented and what won't.

You can't, can you? So why are you making up things.

No, not trying to, you just think you know better than everyone else and you don't, you are making accusations.

All Indic tment means is that Wilson has to face a trial by jury. He'll have every opportunity to present his case in court and have any witness against him sworn to tell the truth and to be cross-examined. I think you referred to that earlier as a "lynching

Regardless, he would still walk if not indicted.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Another fabricated story?

LOL, pot calling the kettle black.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yabits, both sides need to stop! The KKK, The New Black Panther party, Sharpton and Holder, even the media. No one can guess anything what the outcome will be, NO ONE and in trying to anticipate anything is grossly irresponsible. I'm so sick and tired of everyone making this a racial issue when it's not. Sad to say, but if Brown had been White, none of this would be news and especially this long.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Let me quote a part of the article which you conveniently left out.

Let's see. Readers can review the posts to see that you "conveniently left out" the part of the very witness you yourself brought up, where the witness describes what he saw as murder. (Then, you call your own example witness, "unreliable.")

Then you accuse me of leaving something out relating to the "Rashomon effect." The witness you brought up said nothing about the Rashomon effect. And, it just so happens, that the source in which I found your witness's comments said nothing about it either.

So yes, like all other witnesses, this one is also not reliable. However you have already convicted Wilson without even bothering to check whether the witnesses are reliable or not.

I asked if there was any witness who positively says that Brown was trying to attack Wilson, after he had run 100 feet from Wilson's car, and Wilson pursued him to get within 20 to 25 feet. So far, out of seven or eight witness statements that I have seen, not one of them indicates anything more than a stumbling forward by Brown. That is FAR from any kind of attack.

That is the key point. If Brown wasn't trying to attack Wilson, then Wilson killed him for some other reason than self-defense. I call that "murder." And so do the witnesses -- even the one that you brought up.

Wow, a police officer who just had his face smashed by a 6'4, 132 kgs thug, can reach that split second decision that Brown will not be able to get up.

First, there is no reliable evidence that Wilson had his "face smashed." I've seen video evidence of him at the scene and him two hours later at the police station. I can't detect any marks on his face. (Nor can anyone else. When we see the video of him arriving again after his medical checkup, there's no visible bandage anywhere)

Second, Brown was 20 to 25 feet from Wilson -- and stumbling because he had just taken a few gunshots to his upper body. Brown had no weapon. Anyone with any common sense knows that a person can't cover a distance of 20-25 feet in a "split -second."

Moreover, Wilson had the gun, and the ability to buy himself even more time by simply stepping backwards and increasing the distance between himself and Brown, and be able to assess the wounded Brown's next move. At the point Brown was clearly stumbling with his arms out to his sides, and had been hit a few times, there was no need whatsoever for a "split-second" decision. From the time he left his car, Wilson was in complete control of the situation. And that's what makes him a murderer.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@bass

Sure, had Brown been white, this wouldn't have been an issue... he'd probably still be alive.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Readers, please stop bickering.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sad to say, but if Brown had been White, none of this would be news and especially this long.

Somehow you seem to not realize that the above comment makes it racial.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No one can guess anything what the outcome will be, NO ONE and in trying to anticipate anything is grossly irresponsible.

This is what conservatives yell out when they want everyone to assume their brain-dead position.

Sorry, many of us care about justice in this country, even if you don't. That means we have to use our brains to try to understand as much of the case as we possibly can. In so doing, that is the only way to assess whether the grand jury has acted properly or not. The other thing is that most of us know the justice system in America is deeply flawed with guilty parties going free and innocent people being convicted of crimes they never committed.

Those flaws are not going just correct themselves.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I've seen video evidence of him at the scene and him two hours later at the police station. I can't detect any marks on his face.

Your honour, the police refused to allow me direct examination of Wilson's face, which they obviously did to you.But the fact that you are ignorant of a lot of facts and fabricate them is clearly evident.

When we see the video of him arriving again after his medical checkup, there's no visible bandage anywhere

The video that you refer does not have a close-up view of his face, but obviously your friends in the CSI have provided that for you. Unfortunately for me I dont have forensic tools which could have allowed me to analyze the video and arrive at a definite conclusion that Wilson did not have a scratch on him.

Anyone with any common sense knows that a person can't cover a distance of 20-25 feet in a "split -second."

Your honour, the expectation that Wilson would allow Brown to get close to him and launch another attack before shooting him is ludicrous at the best and downright ignorant. I do know know if Wilson is a good Christian, but he might have had reservations about offering his other eye-socket to Brown.

simply stepping backwards

Your honour I would request you to get your face smashed in once, then figure out how easy or difficult it is to step, jump or dance backward. I have no doubt some people might be able to do triple somersaults after a beating, but I doubt Wilson was one.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

the police refused to allow me direct examination of Wilson's face, which they obviously did to you

Then there is no way to assert with any reliability that his face was "smashed in." Unless you can prove otherwise, not a single eyewitness statement has Brown striking the officer's face. If such a blow was delivered and it was serious -- serious enough to impair Wilson's ability to move -- there would be noticeable signs. (Like, for example, Wilson's ability to move.)

I would request you to get your face smashed in once, then figure out how easy or difficult it is to step, jump or dance backward.

The eyewitnesses have Wilson getting out of his car and running after the fleeing kid with no sign of impairment whatsoever. You are presenting a Wilson who was unable to do this. Your own example of a witness has Wilson taking a few steps back as Brown staggered after being hit with several rounds to his upper body. Wilson was clearly able to do this. (He had all the time in the world to take a few more steps back.) Being 20 to 25 feet away from a man who has been hit by gunfire, is staggering towards bending over and hitting the ground, with his arms out at his sides -- there is plenty of time to assess the situation.

That's why your example witness said it was "down outright murder." As do most of the other eyewitnesses, including the white construction workers who observed the scene in stunned disbelief -- one of them holding out his arms just as Brown held out his.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This is what conservatives yell out when they want everyone to assume their brain-dead position.

More like being realistic, something that liberals avoid at all cost.

Sorry, many of us care about justice in this country, even if you don't.

We do, we just care about FAIR justice, NOT SELECTIVE JUSTICE, that's the big difference.

That means we have to use our brains to try to understand as much of the case as we possibly can. In so doing, that is the only way to assess whether the grand jury has acted properly or not.

Doesn't mean that analyzing the GJ means that we know what's going on or what decision they should come up with. That's their decision alone to deal with.

The other thing is that most of us know the justice system in America is deeply flawed with guilty parties going free and innocent people being convicted of crimes they never committed.

That's everywhere in the world, nothing new.

Those flaws are not going just correct themselves.

You and I can't correct it either, even if we have a sissy fit. Change will have to come from within.

Then there is no way to assert with any reliability that his face was "smashed in." Unless you can prove otherwise, not a single eyewitness statement has Brown striking the officer's face.

We haven't seen any photos, therefore it's all conjecture at this point.

If such a blow was delivered and it was serious -- serious enough to impair Wilson's ability to move -- there would be noticeable signs. (Like, for example, Wilson's ability to move.)

That's YOUR PERSONAL theory.

The eyewitnesses have Wilson getting out of his car and running after the fleeing kid with no sign of impairment whatsoever.

That's one of many versions of what possibly happened.

You are presenting a Wilson who was unable to do this.

And you have factual concrete evidence based on.....

Your own example of a witness has Wilson taking a few steps back as Brown staggered after being hit with several rounds to his upper body. Wilson was clearly able to do this. (He had all the time in the world to take a few more steps back.)

So now you are "Mark Fuhrman?"

Being 20 to 25 feet away from a man who has been hit by gunfire, is staggering towards bending over and hitting the ground, with his arms out at his sides -- there is plenty of time to assess the situation.

Yabits, why are you always trying so, so very hard? lol

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Can you guys please stop arguing? By the looks of it, NEITHER of you have any evidence to support what you're saying. This is a place for discussion, not arguing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

We do, we just care about FAIR justice, NOT SELECTIVE JUSTICE, that's the big difference.

A reader, checking back on your statements, will find at least two gross contradictions of your statement above.

First, when you described the indictment and public trial-by-jury process -- the hallmark of a fair justice system -- as a "literal lynching." Someone who uses that term, and stands by their use of it, has no basis for claiming they are for fair justice.

Second, on multiple occasions, while asserting that "we don't know what happened," you have claimed that Michael Brown was responsible for his own death, effectively exonerating the police officer. For those who assert there is probable cause that Wilson abused his power, you have cast little else but hateful invective.

The only way to achieve fair justice is by a fair trial. That means a trial by a jury of his peers, and not a secret tribunal composed of who knows who.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

BlobfishNOV. 25, 2014 - 02:08AM JST Can you guys please stop arguing? By the looks of it, NEITHER of you have any evidence to support what you're saying. This is a place for discussion, not arguing.

Your right Blobfish. US law presume innocence until proven guilty. Bass tries to defend that while other presume guilt.

Fact is witnesses a not always reliable in their account of what happens. We public just don't know what rely happened and how. We know the result and US mass media and a select high profile individuals have convicted Darren Wilson already. THIS IS WRONG!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

US law presume innocence until proven guilty.

Pay attention. This is not about innocence or guilt. It's about probable cause. Is there enough physical and eyewitness evidence to suggest probable cause? If so, Wilson goes to trial. Even then, he's still innocent until proven guilty in that trial.

Also: There is no doubt that Wilson killed Brown. There is no doubt that Brown had no weapon. There is no doubt that Brown had fled and reached 100 feet from Wilson's vehicle. This raises the clear specter of probable cause of wrongful death in some way.

We public just don't know what rely happened and how.

You choose not to know anything. You prefer not to use your brain and remain ignorant.

The decision will be made at 9 PM EDT tonight.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

yabitsNOV. 25, 2014 - 08:30AM JST US law presume innocence until proven guilty.

Pay attention. This is not about innocence or guilt. -----this is where your wrong. You have him convicted already. It's about probable cause. Is there enough physical and eyewitness evidence to suggest probable cause? If so, Wilson goes to trial. Even then, he's still innocent until proven guilty in that trial.

Also: There is no doubt that Wilson killed Brown. True There is no doubt that Brown had no weapon. True There is no doubt that Brown had fled and reached 100 feet from Wilson's vehicle. True This raises the clear specter of probable cause of wrongful death in some way. Brown fled 100 feet away, but how? After being shot? Are you or anyone crucifying Wilson in possession of facts?

We public just don't know what rely happened and how.

You choose not to know anything. You prefer not to use your brain and remain ignorant. -----No, it's called an open mind and yes, I do have respect for the system. One clear indicator is the length of time to reach a conclusion. Would that indicate to you their is more to this case than even you know? Can you grasp such a thought?

The decision will be made at 9 PM EDT tonight.

Both Obama and Holder have skin in the game, yes twist that statement any way you wish, what I mean is they have shown a vested interest. Do you even think any inquiry would overlook that? A Federal investigation is ongoing. What shallow mind would think the local municipality would be so careless to consider such pressures to be absolutely certain? Not mine!

One fact in this case is certain. The media and a few Black leaders have already convicted Wilson. Two "New Black Panthers" tried to obtain pipe bomb materials to be used in the protests possibly coming. Rumors of a price for the one who kills Wilson. The man may have reacted within the law!!!!!

I will make no judgement weather or not Darren Wilson was justified or not. I don't know. Few if any outside the investigation know. Fact is a young man is dead. He was shot by police. It is sad for all families directly impacted. But, it was not murder until.....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Also: There is no doubt that Wilson killed Brown. There is no doubt that Brown had no weapon. There is no doubt that Brown had fled and reached 100 feet from Wilson's vehicle. This raises the clear specter of probable cause of wrongful death in some way.

There is No doubt, Brown was thuggin his way and bullied the store clerk, there is No doubt that Brown used his own girth and size as his weapon, from what it seems so far, there WAS a struggle in the car and that Brown most likely tried to get Wilson's weapon and pummeled him. Ultimately, Brown was the one responsible for his own death.

You choose not to know anything. You prefer not to use your brain and remain ignorant.

Back at you. You know only as much as anyone else in the public.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Why was Brown fighting with Wilson prior to the shooting? Evidence points to Police officer Wilson and Brown fought for control of the officer’s gun. Wilson had fear of being killed by Brown. More than a half-dozen black witnesses have provided testimony to grand jury that supports Wilson’s account of events. Some of the physical evidence, including blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests also supports Wilson’s account of the shooting. Brown appears to be a aggressor who threatened the officer’s life. Brown may not have had his hands raised when he was fatally shot. Brown was first shot at close range and may have been reaching for Wilson’s weapon while the officer was still in his vehicle and Brown was standing at the driver’s side window. The autopsy was consistent with discharged from the barrel of a firearm in a wound on Brown’s thumb. The fact that this guy was reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. I doubt any indictment will be handed down on Wilson.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Honorable Reverend Al Sharpton has also made his mind up and convicted Darren Wilson, hustled this sensitive topic into a racial divide. Nothing new for this $4M tax cheat! He has profited nicely being a racist and he cheated USA of owed taxes not to mention the Black community followers of decent morals.

Shame on you MSNBC

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There is No doubt, Brown was thuggin his way and bullied the store clerk

What does that have to do with anything? The officer didn't know about the incident when he killed Brown.

there is No doubt that Brown used his own girth and size as his weapon

Well, there is actually some doubt about that, but lets assume he did for the sake of argument. That would justify shooting him in the car. It wouldn't justify shooting him 100ft from the car, when he was running away, unarmed.

Ultimately, Brown was the one responsible for his own death.

No. If he was unarmed and shot 100ft from the car, the officer is responsible for his death. It's no different than shooting someone in the back as they run away. Lethal self-defense by officers is only justifiable if their person is at immediate threat of harm, and an unarmed man 100ft away is not presenting this immediate threat of harm.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

How is it that the Libertarian, "I am a free man" shouters always come down on the side of law and order and oppression whenever there's a black man involved?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's not about color lucabrasi from the posters defending Wilson. Its about justice, fair justice.

More accurately the statement should read, why has the media convicted a white officer for shooting a black man? Does the media convict black men shooting white folks? No, they don't.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Mark

I'm all for justice, for everyone, all the time.

But if you look at the profiles and previous posts of a lot of people on this thread (and I have looked), their interest in justice and fairness seem to be a very recent thing.

Almost as if they have a secret prejudice....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No indictment, I guess it's game on now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Grand Jury decided not to indict. Justice served, but it will bring the rats out in the street.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Perhaps your right lucabrasi, I don't read into that so strongly though.

In the end Wilson was justified. Many of the "witness" reports were fabricated and gripped the region simply because they have distrust or hate.

Since day one I thought it would end this way. Witnesses are not entirely reliable. Deep investigations and cross interrogation sheds the truths. NOT THE NEWS MEDIA, or Facebook accounts.

Bottom line, a young man is dead. And not for good reason either. He made mistakes that day and it cost him his life. Sad for an 18 year old. RIP and all condolences to the families.

I still say Shame on Sharpton! Selfish interests only. Clearly he could care less about justice.

And Darren Wilson has a target on his back for quite some time to come.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Secret tribunals win again!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The Justice system worked.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Secret tribunals win again!

No indictment, I guess it's game on now.

Saw this coming! We have a system, perfect? No. Better than most? Yes. This was presented clearly and professionally. Jury was racially balanced and any doubters need to listen to the presentation again and refrain from the media to sway their opinions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Justice system worked.

Sure did! A cop who murdered an unarmed kid at 100ft got off scott free. USA! USA!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Did you listen to the report Stranger? If you had you would realize your statement is wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure did! A cop who murdered an unarmed kid at 100ft got off scott free. USA! USA!

That is your opinion, that's NOT what the Grand Jury came up with. For me it was about and ONLY about Wilson getting a fair trial, that's it, if he murdered Brown or NOT, it depends on what or who you believe, but for me, I just hated the lynch mob that called for him to be arrested without due process or without the facts. That's NOT the kind od democracy we have, everyone has the absolute right to be heard and have their day in court. He did, he's a free man and regardless of the violence and rant Sharpton and the other racial agitators and yes, that goes for some in the media, the police chief, the KKK and the New Black Panther Party, everyone back off and leave Wilson alone and listen to Brown Sr. as he said, we should all be calm regardless of the verdict, heed his wishes. Everyone needs to calm down, go home and put this all behind themselves, if the Brown's want to sue Wilson in a civil court, they should, but that's their decision and everyone else back off.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

For me it was about and ONLY about Wilson getting a fair trial

And instead he got no trial.

That's NOT the kind od democracy we have, everyone has the absolute right to be heard and have their day in court.

And he didn't. Instead he got a secret tribunal, with selective evidence shown.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And he didn't. Instead he got a secret tribunal, with selective evidence shown

I see, but if the secret tribunal ruled the other way, you would be perfectly ok with that. How about the looting that's taking place, why are you NOT outraged about that, destroying their communities once again, violence and that's acceptable? what about destroying the property of innocent people that had nothing to do with this fiasco!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Please discuss this topic on the newest thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then there is no way to assert with any reliability that his face was "smashed in.

But but, you honour , you were absolutely certain that it wasn't. Are you having doubts about your own theories now?

The eyewitnesses have Wilson getting out of his car and running after the fleeing kid with no sign of impairment whatsoever.

You honour, your witnesses are super human. Not only do they have eyes which record every moment and put it in a slow-motion playback for analysis, but they can zoom in and out at will.

Your honour one more request, its time to wind up your Kangaroo court with its wild theories and wildly implausible witnesses. The savages are out on the streets, please grab some popcorn and see some real action unfold.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites