Ferguson Riots

[StrangeSox]

I'm curious, let's flip the switch here: Let's take the cop component out of this. You just have person A allegedly shoots person B at a party. You've got what amounts to 50/50 testimony, with some people saying he did it, some people saying he didn't. He obviously denies it. Do you bring charges on that kind of case? What if he's convicted? Would you not be all up in arms that he was convicted on conflicting evidence? My guess is no - to find guilt you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You need some good, hard evidence. 50/50 generally isn't enough because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

Why is the situation reversed when a cop is involved? Why is it basically that the cop is guilty unless he proves himself innocent? Here you've got, at best, a split in the testimony (this assumes that the anonymous witnesses were found and gave testimony consistent with the newspaper articles). Some say he's surrendering, some say he isn't. Some say he's shooting him down from the back, some deny it. Why the different perspective?

 

It's not reversed when a cop is involved. But we're at a grand jury level here, no a full trial. The burden is simply probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt. If a full, public trial can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, okay. But so far as we can tell with just some leaks from the GJ, the "probable cause" seems to have been met.

 

You also don't have "at best" split testimony in this case, though. You've got the guy who killed Brown and is trying to avoid a murder charge and, from what's publicly known, multiple witnesses all telling a different story from the one Wilson is and more or less similar to each other. They all agree that he's surrendering. Some believe Wilson fired at Brown as he was fleeing, others don't appear to say one way or the other. All agree that he was fatally shot while facing Wilson. Most seem to agree that he staggered towards Wilson possibly after being shot again, but none support Wilson's version of being charged.

[RockRaines]

The one shot to his hand was at close range. There was gunpowder residue in the wound. That's believed to have come during the struggle in/through the car in which two rounds were fired.

 

The other shots all appeared to enter from his front side, but they were not at close range (close meaning within a couple feet). He was not shot in the back, but IIRC one of the arm wounds was inconclusive. What it doesn't and can't rule out is if Wilson shot at him as he ran away but didn't hit him.

The only "evidence" that he had his back turned while shooting is witness heresay. All medical points to him facing the front. Even if they took this guy to trial he isnt going to get convicted.

[StrangeSox]

The only "evidence" that he had his back turned while shooting is witness heresay. All medical points to him facing the front. Even if they took this guy to trial he isnt going to get convicted.

 

Witness testimony isn't hearsay. It's a firsthand account of what they saw. Hearsay would be someone saying what a witness told them they saw e.g. "Bill said he saw Michael put his hands up." That's not allowed, but Bill can definitely come in and testify to what he personally saw.

 

But yeah, I just said that the autopsy indicates that of the shots that actually hit him, they all appear to have come from the front. We don't know, however, how many shots Wilson fired and where he fired them from. If Wilson was 100% on target after a short foot chase in a high-tension situation, he's an incredible shot. How many rounds his discharged and where the shell casing were found would be crucial evidence, but without a full, public trial, I don't know that we'll ever know that.

Edited November 24, 2014 by StrangeSox

[illinilaw08]

I'm curious, let's flip the switch here: Let's take the cop component out of this. You just have person A allegedly shoots person B at a party. You've got what amounts to 50/50 testimony, with some people saying he did it, some people saying he didn't. He obviously denies it. Do you bring charges on that kind of case? What if he's convicted? Would you not be all up in arms that he was convicted on conflicting evidence? My guess is no - to find guilt you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You need some good, hard evidence. 50/50 generally isn't enough because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

Why is the situation reversed when a cop is involved? Why is it basically that the cop is guilty unless he proves himself innocent? Here you've got, at best, a split in the testimony (this assumes that the anonymous witnesses were found and gave testimony consistent with the newspaper articles). Some say he's surrendering, some say he isn't. Some say he's shooting him down from the back, some deny it. Why the different perspective?

 

Lots of criminal charges involve "he said, she said" and conflicting witness testimonies. I'm not opining on Wilson here, but if "he said, she said" and conflicting testimony was a bar to charges being filed, there would be a lot fewer criminal cases on the docket.

[ptatc]

It's not reversed when a cop is involved. But we're at a grand jury level here, no a full trial. The burden is simply probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt. If a full, public trial can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, okay. But so far as we can tell with just some leaks from the GJ, the "probable cause" seems to have been met.

 

You also don't have "at best" split testimony in this case, though. You've got the guy who killed Brown and is trying to avoid a murder charge and, from what's publicly known, multiple witnesses all telling a different story from the one Wilson is and more or less similar to each other. They all agree that he's surrendering. Some believe Wilson fired at Brown as he was fleeing, others don't appear to say one way or the other. All agree that he was fatally shot while facing Wilson. Most seem to agree that he staggered towards Wilson possibly after being shot again, but none support Wilson's version of being charged.

They all agree he has his hands up but continues to move toward the officer. This is the part where the story loses credibility to me. I can't envision a scenario where the officer feels threatened but tells Brown to continue to walk toward him. He would tell him to get down and stay still so he can handcuff him. So., even if he is attempting to surrender, he is still increasing the threat by walking toward the officer.

[LittleHurt05]

http://wgntv.com/2014/11/24/woman-saying-w...f-in-head-dies/

 

 

[chw42]

http://wgntv.com/2014/11/24/woman-saying-w...f-in-head-dies/

 

Lots of irony there.

 

The gun that was supposed to protect you ends up killing you.

[cabiness42]

My uncle was a forensic chemist for the Army. He was sent to analyze evidence for and testify at a court martial for two soldiers accused of shooting and killing civilians in a foreign nation where the US had peacekeeping duties. A full dozen local residents testified under oath that the civilians were running away from the soldiers when they were shot. It took my uncle all of 15 minutes of analysis of the clothes and bodies of the victims to determine with 100% certainty that every single bullet entry was from the front. The soldiers were acquitted.

 

People have no hesitations about lying under oath in order to try to gain a "win" for "their side." Unfortunately, in the case of Ferguson, an officer's life is now ruined because of these lies, even though he is not facing criminal charges.

[Soxbadger]

You know its pretty silly to announce it at night. Its almost asking for a problem.

[Rowand44]

You know its pretty silly to announce it at night. Its almost asking for a problem.

Really dumb. I heard they wanted to make sure kids were out of school and what not but to announce it this late is just stupid.

[zenryan]

You know its pretty silly to announce it at night. Its almost asking for a problem.

 

 

 

 

yeah because there is no way the problem makers wouldve held off because it was day time...

[Soxbadger]

yeah because there is no way the problem makers wouldve held off because it was day time...

 

A lot easier to control a situation when you can see what is going on.

 

There may have been trouble, but nighttime just exacerbates the potential issues.

[Balta1701]

yeah because there is no way the problem makers wouldve held off because it was day time...

http://www.businessinsider.com/ferguson-po...wn-death-2014-8

"We ask that any groups wishing to assemble in prayer or in protest do so only during daylight hours in an organized and respectful manner. We further ask all those wishing to demonstrate or assemble to disperse well before the evening hours to ensure the safety of the participants," the police statement said.

[Jenksismyhero]

Really dumb. I heard they wanted to make sure kids were out of school and what not but to announce it this late is just stupid.

 

If I'm a parent I'm happy they decided that. Who knows how crazy this will get. Hopefully it'll be a whole lotta nothing.

[zenryan]

http://www.businessinsider.com/ferguson-po...wn-death-2014-8

 

 

 

police also call for non violent protests and we see how well the citizens of that area listen.

 

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

police also call for non violent protests and we see how well the citizens of that area listen.

And people put their hands up in surrender and...well.

[zenryan]

And people put their hands up in surrender and...well.

 

 

 

well that appears not to be true but dont let the facts get in the way of a good narrative

[StrangeSox]

This announcement was a train wreck.

[Balta1701]

well that appears not to be true but dont let the facts get in the way of a good narrative

Less than a minute after the shooting people were on film running towards the officer yelling "He had his ****ing hands up".

 

That's a helluva lot more believable to me than eyewitness statements and the evaluation of a prosecutor who brought the case to a grand jury and then spent like 20 minutes telling why the press was irresponsible and it was really their fault.

[StrangeSox]

Well absolutely no one should be surprised by this.

[Balta1701]

It's not showing up on my TV but apparently many around the country now have a side by side image of Obama talking on one side and on the other side D batteries being thrown at officers donning gas masks.

 

Edit: and apparently the first tear gas canisters were fired while he was speaking.

[LittleHurt05]

It's not showing up on my TV but apparently many around the country now have a side by side image of Obama talking on one side and on the other side D batteries being thrown at officers donning gas masks.

 

I had Obama on one side and people trying to flip a police car on the other side.

[southsider2k5]

Less than a minute after the shooting people were on film running towards the officer yelling "He had his ****ing hands up".

 

That's a helluva lot more believable to me than eyewitness statements and the evaluation of a prosecutor who brought the case to a grand jury and then spent like 20 minutes telling why the press was irresponsible and it was really their fault.

 

Funny to hear Obama launch into his "media responsibility" statements too.

[StrangeSox]

Batteries?

[Balta1701]

Batteries?

That was the official statement released by the STL county pd on twitter is that there were D batteries being thrown. There have also been statements saying rocks & a few other things but not official.