Grand Jury announcement today!

[Mackeyser]

Well, that's all fine and pithy, but pretty sure unarmed robbery doesn't warrant a death sentence without benefit of due process. And I've not seen ONE person elevate Michael Brown to anything above the status of...person. Certainly not Gandhi. However, just like with Rodney King, to think that this is a one off incident and the police are the victims just misses the point. Rodney King was probably the worst guy to "carry the banner", but he didn't get to choose. Neither did Michael Brown.

Last I checked, we were a nation of laws. We used to hold ourselves ABOVE our baser instincts. We had the Nuremburg trials because we tried War Criminals. We went to great lengths even given our imperfect history to seek justice. The lady holding the scales of justice is blindfolded for a reason. Unfortunately, we've taken her blindfold away because we're afraid she might miss something. Unfortunately, it's US who's missing something: a process with impartiality and integrity.

Part of the reason things have gotten so bad isn't that we have criminals. We've ALWAYS had criminals. The problem now is that we aren't any longer holding the line on what gave us our moral edge... what truly and rightly allowed us to not only distinguish right from wrong, but to impress upon OTHERS that distinction.

More and more, it's become just a different corruption... a different set of rules anchored in a different shifting sand bar...

We used to be guided by a moral compass. Now? Moral compass? What moral compass?

This country HAD something special because it was built on sacrifice and the vision of justice. Now, we all know that that vision was imperfect and clouded and obscured, but as a society we held to it with an unblinking faith. People came from all over the globe because of it.

Well, we've blinked. We've acquiesced to the notion that it's okay to lessen our hold on our principles or even abandon our principles altogether as long as we embrace a nebulous "us versus them" good guys versus bad guys mentality. The problem becomes... what do we do when the good guys don't behave like good guys should?

Well, we see it. The current system does absolutely nothing. In Police department after police department and in the FBI and ATF and other agencies, virtually every shoot and fatality is considered "clean", which statistically isn't possible and points to a disdain for human life and non-lethal means of conflict resolution.

Are we really at the point where we EXPECT every poor person and every person of color to be perfect and unindictable in order to seek justice? If a guy robs a store, arrest him in the manner prescribed by law. Mirandize him. Present the charges and offer him counsel. Have him arraigned before a judge. None of this requires killing him unless he poses an imminent threat to the life of the officer or others. Even then, non-lethal means of handling situations should be available.

And before anyone starts getting holier than thou... pretty sure all of us have committed a crime. Gone more than 20mph over the speed limit, maybe? Worse? Texted while driving? (which is just as bad as drinking and driving except you can put the phone down) Stole something? Hit someone? Worse?

Short of Jesus, no message has had a perfect messenger. Expecting that is expecting the impossible and will always result in missing the message.

 

[Stranger]

Well, that's all fine and pithy, but pretty sure unarmed robbery doesn't warrant a death sentence without benefit of due process. And I've not seen ONE person elevate Michael Brown to anything above the status of...person. Certainly not Gandhi. However, just like with Rodney King, to think that this is a one off incident and the police are the victims just misses the point. Rodney King was probably the worst guy to "carry the banner", but he didn't get to choose. Neither did Michael Brown.

Last I checked, we were a nation of laws. We used to hold ourselves ABOVE our baser instincts. We had the Nuremburg trials because we tried War Criminals. We went to great lengths even given our imperfect history to seek justice. The lady holding the scales of justice is blindfolded for a reason. Unfortunately, we've taken her blindfold away because we're afraid she might miss something. Unfortunately, it's US who's missing something: a process with impartiality and integrity.

Part of the reason things have gotten so bad isn't that we have criminals. We've ALWAYS had criminals. The problem now is that we aren't any longer holding the line on what gave us our moral edge... what truly and rightly allowed us to not only distinguish right from wrong, but to impress upon OTHERS that distinction.

More and more, it's become just a different corruption... a different set of rules anchored in a different shifting sand bar...

We used to be guided by a moral compass. Now? Moral compass? What moral compass?

This country HAD something special because it was built on sacrifice and the vision of justice. Now, we all know that that vision was imperfect and clouded and obscured, but as a society we held to it with an unblinking faith. People came from all over the globe because of it.

Well, we've blinked. We've acquiesced to the notion that it's okay to lessen our hold on our principles or even abandon our principles altogether as long as we embrace a nebulous "us versus them" good guys versus bad guys mentality. The problem becomes... what do we do when the good guys don't behave like good guys should?

Well, we see it. The current system does absolutely nothing. In Police department after police department and in the FBI and ATF and other agencies, virtually every shoot and fatality is considered "clean", which statistically isn't possible and points to a disdain for human life and non-lethal means of conflict resolution.

Are we really at the point where we EXPECT every poor person and every person of color to be perfect and unindictable in order to seek justice? If a guy robs a store, arrest him in the manner prescribed by law. Mirandize him. Present the charges and offer him counsel. Have him arraigned before a judge. None of this requires killing him unless he poses an imminent threat to the life of the officer or others. Even then, non-lethal means of handling situations should be available.

And before anyone starts getting holier than thou... pretty sure all of us have committed a crime. Gone more than 20mph over the speed limit, maybe? Worse? Texted while driving? (which is just as bad as drinking and driving except you can put the phone down) Stole something? Hit someone? Worse?

Short of Jesus, no message has had a perfect messenger. Expecting that is expecting the impossible and will always result in missing the message.

Preach it, brother!

 

[Boffo97]

Well, that's all fine and pithy, but pretty sure unarmed robbery doesn't warrant a death sentence without benefit of due process.

And this is where it all falls apart. Michael Brown didn't receive a death sentence or any other sentence for his robbery. All the forensic evidence points to the conclusion, whether one wants to believe it or not, that Brown attacked Wilson, and Wilson was forced to defend himself.

If one wishes not to believe that, it's pretty easy that even if a completely unnecessary and wasteful trial (not because trials in general are such, but because the evidence even before a potential trial more strongly supported the conclusion that there was no crime than otherwise) happened and resulted in a not guilty verdict, those not believing the forensic evidence now wouldn't believe the integrity of the trial process anyway.

There is an issue with minorities being treated unfairly by police in this country, but making Brown the patron saint of the cause (and yes, that's what's currently happening) does nothing but diminish the credibility of cases where there really was racism.

 

[Mackeyser]

Ezra Klein wrote a piece in Vox. Highlights some of the things I was talking about. "all the forensic evidence"... Sorry, we just don't agree on that term.

And a BIG part of this is the DA not being just as critical of Officer Wilson's testimony as he was with certain eyewitnesses. Point isn't to say Officer Wilson is guilty or innocent. Really not trying to get into that. Actually, I never was IN that to begin with... But Officer Wilson's story required examination. And it didn't get it.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side

We've finally heard from Officer Darren Wilson.

Wilson had been publicly silent since the events of August 9, when he shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. And, even as the grand jury announced its decision not to indict him, he remained silent. He had his attorneys release a statement on his behalf.

But on Monday night, St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch released the evidence given to the grand jury, including the interview police did with Wilson in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. And so we got to read, for the first time, Wilson's full, immediate account of his altercation with Brown.

And it is unbelievable.

I mean that in the literal sense of the term: "difficult or impossible to believe." But I want to be clear here. I'm not saying Wilson is lying. I'm not saying his testimony is false. I am saying that the events, as he describes them, are simply bizarre. His story is difficult to believe.

The story Wilson tells goes like this:

At about noon on August 9th, Wilson hears on the radio that there's a theft in progress at the Ferguson Market. The suspect is a black male in a black shirt.

Moments later, Wilson sees two young black men walking down the yellow stripe in the center of the street. He pulls over. "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" They refuse. "We're almost at our destination," one of them replies. Wilson tries again. "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?" he asks.

And then things get weird.

Brown's response to "what's wrong with the sidewalk?", as recorded by Wilson, is "fuck what you have to say." Remember, Wilson is a uniformed police officer, in a police car, and Brown is an 18-year-old kid who just committed a robbery. And when asked to use the sidewalk, Wilson says Brown replied, "Fuck what you have to say."

WILSON SAYS BROWN REPLIED, "FUCK WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY."

Wilson backs his car up and begins to open the door. "Hey, come here," he said to the kid who just cursed at him. He says Brown replied, "What the fuck you gonna do?" And then Brown, in Wilson's telling, slams the car door closed. Wilson tries to open the door again, tells Brown to get back, and then Brown leans into the vehicle and begins punching him.

Photos surround Michael Brown's casket in Ferguson, MO. (Richard Perry-Pool/Getty Images)

Let's take a breath and recap. Wilson sees two young black men walking in the middle of the street. He pulls over and politely asks them to use the sidewalk. They refuse. He asks again, still polite. Brown tells Wilson — again, a uniformed police officer in a police car — "fuck what you have to say." Wilson stops his car, tries to get out, and Brown slams the car door on him and then begins punching him through the open window.

What happens next is the most unbelievable moment in the narrative. And so it's probably best that I just quote Wilson's account at length on it.

I was doing the, just scrambling, trying to get his arms out of my face and him from grabbing me and everything else. He turned to his...if he's at my vehicle, he turned to his left and handed the first subject. He said, "here, take these." He was holding a pack of — several packs of cigarillos which was just, what was stolen from the Market Store was several packs of cigarillos. He said, "here, hold these" and when he did that I grabbed his right arm trying just to control something at that point. Um, as I was holding it, and he came around, he came around with his arm extended, fist made, and went like that straight at my face with his...a full swing from his left hand.

So Brown is punching inside the car. Wilson is scrambling to deflect the blows, to protect his face, to regain control of the situation. And then Brown stops, turns to his left, says to his friend, "Here, hold these," and hands him the cigarillos stolen from Ferguson Market. Then he turns back to Wilson and, with his left hand now freed from holding the contraband goods, throws a haymaker at Wilson.

Every bullshit detector in me went off when I read that passage. Which doesn't mean that it didn't happen exactly the way Wilson describes. But it is, again, hard to imagine. Brown, an 18-year-old kid holding stolen goods, decides to attack a cop and, while attacking him, stops, hands his stolen goods to his friend, and then returns to the beatdown. It reads less like something a human would do and more like a moment meant to connect Brown to the robbery.

Wilson next recounts his thought process as he reached for a weapon. He considered using his mace, but at such close range, the mace might get in his eyes, too. He doesn't carry a taser with a fireable cartridge, but even if he did, "it probably wouldn't have hit [Brown] anywhere". Wilson couldn't reach his baton or his flashlight. So he went for his gun.

Brown sees him go for the gun. And he replies: "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me."

"YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A FUCKING PUSSY TO SHOOT ME."

Again, stop for a moment and think about that. Brown is punching Wilson, sees the terrified cop reaching for his gun, and says "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me." He dares him to shoot.

A protestors holds up a sign saying "don't shoot". (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

And then Brown grabs Wilson's gun, twists it, and points it at Wilson's "pelvic area". Wilson regains control of the firearm and gets off a shot, shattering the glass. Brown backs up a half step and, realizing he's unharmed, dives back into the car to attack Wilson. Wilson fires again, and then Brown takes off running. (You can see the injuries Wilson sustained from the fight in these photographs.)

Wilson exits the car to give chase. He yells at Brown to get down on the ground. Here, I'm going to go back to Wilson's words:

When he stopped, he turned, looked at me, made like a grunting noise and had the most intense, aggressive face I've ever seen on a person. When he looked at me, he then did like the hop...you know, like people do to start running. And, he started running at me. During his first stride, he took his right hand put it under his shirt into his waistband. And I ordered him to stop and get on the ground again. He didn't. I fired multiple shots. After I fired the multiple shots, I paused a second, yelled at him to get on the ground again, he was still in the same state. Still charging, hand still in his waistband, hadn't slowed down.

The stuff about Brown putting his hand in his waistband is meant to suggest that Wilson had reason to believe Brown might pull a gun. But it's strange. We know Brown didn't have a gun. And that's an odd fact to obscure while charging a police officer.

Either way, at that point, Wilson shoots again, and kills Brown.

There are inconsistencies in Wilson's story. He estimates that Brown ran 20-30 feet away from the car and then charged another 10 feet back towards Wilson. But we know Brown died 150 feet away from the car.

There are also consistencies. St Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch said that Brown's DNA was found inside Wilson's car, suggesting there was a physical altercation inside the vehicle. We know shots were fired from inside the car. We know Brown's bullet wounds show he was only hit from the front, never from the back.

But the larger question is, in a sense, simpler: Why?

Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun? Why would he put his hand in his waistband while charging, even though he was unarmed?

NONE OF THIS FITS WITH WHAT WE KNOW OF MICHAEL BROWN

None of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown. Brown wasn't a hardened felon. He didn't have a death wish. And while he might have been stoned, this isn't how stoned people act. The toxicology report did not indicate he was on PCP or something that would've led to suicidal aggression.

Which doesn't mean Wilson is a liar. Unbelievable things happen every day. The fact that his story raises more questions than it answers doesn't mean it isn't true.

But the point of a trial would have been to try to answer these questions. We would have either found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with Wilson's unbelievable story.​

 

[Stranger]

 

[rhinobean]

What did the eyewitnesses say about the events of that day? It don't make sense that Brown would charge a cop who'd been shooting at him! That's why people believe Wilson's story! Crazy as that story sounds! Running away would have made sense!

 

[Boffo97]

Well, here's again what it comes down to: One can choose whether or not to believe in the forensic evidence as reported in mainstream media (showing by where the injuries on Brown were, Wilson's story of being attacked by Brown is supported, and the story that Brown supposedly surrendered isn't.) And after some quick research, Vox doesn't sound like a particularly reliable source.

But the problem still remains... if one chooses not to believe the forensic evidence, one was not going to believe any verdict other than guilty at a trial anyway. And of course it IS about that. If the verdict was "Not Guilty", then people would still claim the story wasn't "examined" enough.

If the forensic evidence (if not all, then the vast majority of it) didn't back Wilson's story, then I'd want a trial as much as anyone. But this is so open and shut that if it weren't for the races of the participants, it'd barely merit one mention in the papers.

 

[Boffo97]

Here's some details from the Washington Post... it presents alignment with Wilson's story that the DA would have been VERY hard pressed to prove said story wasn't true, especially since the alternative story (hands up, don't shoot) is also shown as false. Brown's hand being CONFIRMED as in close proximity to Winslow's gun is particularly damaging to any alternate argument.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/

By Paul Cassell November 28
In the wake of the Michael Brown grand jury decision, several blog posts (including one by me Wednesday) have dissected Officer Darren Wilson’s testimony. Read by itself, different people can draw differing conclusions about whether it is accurate or not. But what hasn’t been widely discussed is whether the physical evidence confirms or contradicts his story.

Perhaps the reason for this disinterest in the ballistics report, autopsies and other similar information is that for at least some of Brown’s supporters the facts are, apparently, largely irrelevant because Brown is a metaphorical “symbol” of injustice regardless of what actually happened. A related reason may be that working through this information is time-consuming — and thus beyond the capacity of many commentators. In contrast, the grand jury painstakingly heard sworn testimony from more than 60 witnesses, which is now collected in several thousand pages of transcripts. Reviewing these transcripts reveals some important and essentially indisputable facts. And those facts confirm many critical aspects of Wilson’s account.

The Washington Post has this extremely helpful graphical presentation of what happened during the shooting, with links to some of the physical evidence in the case. What follows is my discussion of what appears to be some of the most significant. To be clear, I do not purport here to completely describe all the forensic evidence and related testimony. But I will commit to carefully reviewing all of the comments to this post and if anyone points to a significant omission in what I’m describing about the physical evidence — and provides a citation to the volume and page number of the grand jury testimony for that omission — I’ll be glad to consider adding discussion of it. This post is limited to discussing the physical evidence, as witness testimony cuts in many different directions.

As those who have been following the case closely are aware, Wilson testified before the grand jury that Brown reached for his (Wilson’s) gun and a struggle for the gun followed, during which Wilson fired two shots. Later, Wilson pursued Brown and, after he turned and then charged toward Wilson, fired multiple shots bringing him to the ground about 8 to 10 feet away from him.

The physical evidence is consistent with his testimony. The County Medical Examiner was one of the first witnesses to testify before the grand jury. He explained the autopsy he conducted on Brown. It will be useful to show the injuries discussed and, for these purposes, I insert a chart prepared by an examiner hired by Brown’s family. (The parallel chart from the ME has not been publicly released, although the ME’s testimony has been released).

The ME found a tangential injury on Brown’s right thumb that traveled along the surface of the thumb — grand jury testimony Volume 3 (Sept. 9), page 114, line 12 etc. (hereafter cited by just page and line number). The ME further explained that he saw what appeared to be “soot” in the wound, which was consistent with a shot from close range (116:22). Indeed, based on his training and expertise, the ME thought that the soot would be indicative of the gun that fired the bullet causing the wound having been only 6 to 9 inches away (118:12). The soot was consistent with that discharged from a gun (122:13). The official report from the Office of Medical Examiner later confirmed that “the previously described particles of foreign particulate matter are consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”

The significance of this wound and related physical evidence is that it places Brown’s right hand within 6 to 9 inches of the barrel of Wilson’s firearm. This physical evidence is thus quite consistent with Wilson’s testimony that Brown was trying to get hold of Wilson’s weapon, creating a fear in Wilson that he was going to get shot. It also creates a problem for those who view Brown as having been somehow accosted by Wilson and was just trying to escape. At least in the theories that I have seen sketched out, no explanation is offered for why Brown (who weighed around 300 pounds) had been forced by Wilson to have his right hand in a position where it was close to the gun and inside Wilson’s police car.

At some point in the altercation, it appears undisputed that Brown (and his friend Dorian Johnson) ran away from Wilson. Wilson pursued on foot and, according to Wilson, Brown eventually paused, turned around, and then charged at him.

The ME’s testimony also aligns with Wilson’s testimony on this point. The ME found various wounds to Brown’s arms, upper torso, and head. Focusing on the head wounds, a detailed report and summary report from the Office of the Medical Examiner indicated that one wound with an entrance to the vertex of Brown’s head was “downward and rightward” (detailed report at p. 2) and the wound with an entrance to central forehead was “downward, slightly backward, and rightward” (summary p. 1). The report also describes the entrance to the wounds on Michael Brown’s chest as “downward” or “slightly downward” (id.).

The ME explicated these findings at great length to the grand jurors. He explained that the entry direction for the head wounds, for example, was “slightly downward” (157:6). The earlier wounds would not have been disabling (151:1) and would not have been disabling in combination, until the final wound to the top of the head (159:15). In the ME’s opinion, the first wound was the wound to the thumb, the last was the wound to the top of Brown’s head (197:7). The ME specifically testified that if Brown was bent over, that would be consistent with the entry to the head wounds, although he cautioned that he could not say for certain what position Brown was in at the time he received the wound (166:11).

Perhaps most important, the ME carefully explained how he was able to identify entry points and exit points for the wounds to Brown. With regard to the wounds on the torso and head, there were no wounds from the back (197:18). With regard to the arms, there was only one injury that was from the back — an injury to “the posterior portion of the right forearm” (198:25). The ME indicated that it is extremely difficult to identify, from bullet wounds, the position of the arms at the time of a shot because “you’ve got . . . an elbow joint, you have a shoulder joint and then the wrist, you have a lot of mobility within that arm and it can be in a lot of scenarios” (133:11).

Here again, this testimony was consistent with Wilson’s testimony. It aligned with Brown charging forward toward Wilson, coming to a halt only when Wilson was able to get a fatal shot to the head. Significantly, the ME’s testimony did not align with those who claimed (before the grand jury or in the media) the Wilson had gunned Brown down in the back.

The grand jury also heard testimony about a second, independent autopsy performed by an forensic expert hired by the Brown family, Michael Baden. Baden testified that his findings were the same as the ME’s (Vol. 23, at 108:1). With regard to the thumb wound suffered by Brown, he concluded that the thumb was just a “few inches” away from Wilson’s gun. He praised the work of a technician who had found in Wilson’s car skin tissue that appeared to be from Michael Brown’s thumb (72:20). Baden also found that Brown’s head was down when the shots were fired (71:2). (In one curious recent note, the pathology assistant heavily involved with Baden’s work was apparently a fraud, as reported in just the last few days by CNN).

Baden also discussed the significance of a positive finding from the toxicology report conducted on Brown that came back positive for cannabinoids — specifically, THC in a concentration level that Baden described as “relatively small” (79:11). Baden did, however, report that “the amount of marijuana that [Brown] has in his system could cause abnormal behavior, but usually doesn’t. The best indicator of that would be what his behavior was in the time period before . . . Was he walking in the street because of marijuana? That isn’t usually what happens with marijuana, but it could be and it is too variable” (80:5).

In addition to the autopsy information, the grand jury was also presented with ballistics information. The crime scene detective presented the location of shell casings and other evidence recovered after the shooting. The locations of the recovered evidence was also marked, as depicted in the adjacent photograph.

this chart by The Post (developed from a chart presented to the grand jury).

Of particular interest for evaluating Wilson’s testimony is the location of the 12 shell casings recovered. Two of them were recovered close to Wilson’s car, conforming to his testimony about his firing two shots there (vol. V, 226:4). After that, the remaining 10 casings were recovered adjacent to (or behind) the path that Wilson said Brown took when charging toward him. This was consistent with Wilson firing a series of shots as Brown rushed toward him, all the while backpedaling to try and increase the distance.

These are the highlights of the physical evidence that I have reviewed in the case, compared to Wilson’s testimony. Based on my initial read, so far as I can see there are no significant inconsistencies between the physical evidence and Wilson’s grand jury testimony. Other reviews have likewise not identified readily-apparent examples of problems with Wilson’s testimony. For example, a review of the grand jury testimony by three Associated Press reporters noted numerous examples of witness statements inconsistent with the physical evidence, but offered no examples from Wilson’s testimony.

The physical evidence is important because, unlike witness testimony, it doesn’t lie and can’t be accused of bias (such as racism). As the cliche goes, the physical evidence is what it is. In this case, the physical evidence aligned with Wilson’s testimony. To be sure, as my co-blogger Orin properly cautioned earlier this week, it is always possible for a potential target in criminal case to lie before a grand jury. But it is also possible for him to tell the truth. The grand jury had to sort out these competing possibilities — and the physical evidence gave no reason to doubt Wilson’s testimony.

Update: Several readers have helped me locate some additional, significant evidence confirming that Michael Brown was extremely close to Officer Wilson’s gun. An expert in DNA from the St. Louis County Police Department Crime Law testified that Michael Brown’s DNA was later found on Wilson’s firearm. (Vol. 19, 182:16). It was not possible to determine whether this was due to contact with Brown’s skin, blood, or some other bodily fluid. The interior left front door panel of Wilson’s car also had DNA from Michael Brown on it (185:9). On the other hand, the DNA expert did not find Wilson’s DNA on Michael Brown’s shirt (191:15).

Further update: Commenter Mark Spoo, while questioning me about a few of my conclusions, has also helpfully alerted me to this detailed index of the grand jury testimony from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

 

[Thordaddy]

Who beside me thought the anti cop rhetoric would eventually spawn something like this ?

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/

 

[jrry32]

Who beside me thought the anti cop rhetoric would eventually spawn something like this ?

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/

It's not surprising. I'm just hoping it doesn't get worse. It's a tragedy but at the same time, I just can't help thinking that these officers will be called and remembered as heroes while the man who killed them will be remembered as a monster...and had he lived, he would have been convicted, locked up and had the key thrown away. The men who murdered John Crawford and Eric Garner were never indicted, they will not be remembered as monsters, they walk around free men, and nobody will remember those two as heroes...some won't even remember them as victims.

Nobody deserves to die but the cops need to take a look in the mirror and consider why people are so angry...and then they need to change for the better. Because it'll only get worse if they don't start fixing the issues. And the prosecutors need to stop letting them off the hook.

 

[LesBaker]

Who beside me thought the anti cop rhetoric would eventually spawn something like this ?

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/

Me.
Wait, did we just "shoot"?

ha

we did!

 

[Thordaddy]

It's not surprising. I'm just hoping it doesn't get worse. It's a tragedy but at the same time, I just can't help thinking that these officers will be called and remembered as heroes while the man who killed them will be remembered as a monster...and had he lived, he would have been convicted, locked up and had the key thrown away. The men who murdered John Crawford and Eric Garner were never indicted, they will not be remembered as monsters, they walk around free men, and nobody will remember those two as heroes...some won't even remember them as victims.

Nobody deserves to die but the cops need to take a look in the mirror and consider why people are so angry...and then they need to change for the better. Because it'll only get worse if they don't start fixing the issues. And the prosecutors need to stop letting them off the hook.

AND once again THAt is a gross generalization jrry,unless you know a whole lot more about those police officers how they are "remembered" means jack ,and how you can say Eric Garner was murdered is beyond description.
Then again as I was watching the news yesterday some news casters were saying "in retaliation for the shooting of Mike Brown and Eric Garner" a sterling example of where you get your news being key in how you might see things.

As far as Garner goes he was not being choked and was not choked to death,he died in the ambulance, I've listened to the tape of his arrest he cries out i can't breath twice, if you only knew how many times I've seen and heard a kid say the same thing in wrestling matches and KNOWN they were just trying to get out of the predicament they were in when the fact is a person being choked CAN'T cry out once let alone twice. BTW the shopkeeper where Garner was arrested called and complained about him being there, it wasn't some random act of racism by a cop as it is certainly being framed and Garner was arrested numerous times previously for the same offense ,so we can't even use ignorance of the law as an excuse for Garners resisting.

A critical difference here was this , these policemen were executed , as of yet there isn't anything except bigotry rank bigotry as a motive even though it was in the mind of a clearly disturbed person, for anyone to somehow then generalize and rationalize this as somehow being a result of other police and their actions is for me an indication that some of that bigotry is behind it.

Like most people I have been charged for violations that were bogus and IMO could let my experiences jaundice my view of police , we ,most of us , practice selective compliance of the law and yes we have some laws that make little to no sense . Thing is though if the police practice selective enforcement then they are in the wrong.

I have had bad experiences with people of color where they were doing things anyone would take them to task for and been called a racist not because I was being one but because they were using it as a weapon in confrontation.
IOW I have experiences that IF I was to yield to emotion I could find a way to expand my experiences to generality and hate both ,but I don't because until someone asks me to consider them as part of a group or the situation truly dictates it, everyone deserves to be first and foremost
dealt with as an individual .

BTW one OF the memes we keep hearing about the Brown case is Wilson didn't have to shoot Mike, so here now when the police officer doesn't shoot and after a Grand jury has reviewed the evidence of the case for over a month and rendered their finding people are still calling Garners death a murder.
I wonder exactly what people want other than to prosecute their own bias, should the police just ask kindly can you please come with me and if the answer is no ,just walk away ?
THERE IS no way for a police officer to arrest someone who is resisting that doesn't include risk to the person being arrested, a taser could send a heart into afib, pepper spray in the wrong eyes can leave them blind permanently, a net can cause a fall which if the perp is on blood thinners can cause fatal bleeding. Garner had LOTS of medical problems that were adjudicated as being contributory to his death and FWIW he suffered cardiac arrest ,no doubt in the world he resisted arrest and his resisting arrest precipitated whatever physical injuries that culminated in his death. No one knows for sure whether that cardiac arrest would have happened without the physical exertion , had he gone peacefully , complied with the officer he wasn't going to be harmed ,but he didn't.

Again though we are being treated to generalized hate speech against the police regularly, and it's no less mindless than the rioters EVEN IF Mike Brown was murdered in cold blood and Garner as well it would still be incredible intellectual laziness to expand it to a population even with ones own anecdotal "evidence" to set the mind to accepting the meme.
The very first people who should be glad there are police aught to be the ones being arrested ,because if the police won't enforce the law and protect the honest people from them the honest people will have no choice but to protect themselves and IMO there would be a MUCH higher death toll .
Police are as human as any of the so called "victims" and are being subjected to bias going to the highest office in the land and I personally submit that expanding these occurrences ,generalizing them, is projecting and we ALL need to examine whether our attitudes contribute to a dialogue that ends with two police officers being murdered in cold blood, possibly children without a father because they made a career path that puts their life in danger under the best of conditions in order to prevent us from being run down by drunk drivers, accosted by robbers and rapists,kidnapped, you name it. If what they do for us doesn't dictate to anyone that they at least get to be considered as individuals , not lumped in with others in their profession that aren't what they are supposed to be I'm sure I can't change their heart which seems to be controlling their minds.

 

[jrry32]

AND once again THAt is a gross generalization jrry,unless you know a whole lot more about those police officers how they are "remembered" means jack ,and how you can say Eric Garner was murdered is beyond description.
Then again as I was watching the news yesterday some news casters were saying "in retaliation for the shooting of Mike Brown and Eric Garner" a sterling example of where you get your news being key in how you might see things.

As far as Garner goes he was not being choked and was not choked to death,he died in the ambulance, I've listened to the tape of his arrest he cries out i can't breath twice, if you only knew how many times I've seen and heard a kid say the same thing in wrestling matches and KNOWN they were just trying to get out of the predicament they were in when the fact is a person being choked CAN'T cry out once let alone twice. BTW the shopkeeper where Garner was arrested called and complained about him being there, it wasn't some random act of racism by a cop as it is certainly being framed and Garner was arrested numerous times previously for the same offense ,so we can't even use ignorance of the law as an excuse for Garners resisting.

They are already being called heroes in articles.

Whereas here you are proving my point. Eric Garner wasn't murdered despite the banned chokehold causing his death.

But as I said, there will be people who always try to justify what the cops did to Garner and Crawford.

 

[Rams0307]

They are already being called heroes in articles.

Whereas here you are proving my point. Eric Garner wasn't murdered despite the banned chokehold causing his death.

But as I said, there will be people who always try to justify what the cops did to Garner and Crawford.

You're making leaps in logic that you can't justify and making claims that are absurdly prejudicial. I am glad I don't share your ideology.

 

[jrry32]

You're making leaps in logic that you can't justify and making claims that are absurdly prejudicial. I am glad I don't share your ideology.

I can easily justify it. But if it would make you feel better...I'll use more precise wording. The officer negligently or recklessly committed homicide by killing Eric Garner with his banned chokehold.

Now that the semantics are out of the way...you can go ahead and justify the unlawful killing of a man simply because the killer was a cop.

And then you'll understand why shit like this is happening. The guy who murdered those cops was a nutjob looking for attention...but as long as people continue to allow cops to do those things and get away with it, you'll enable the nutjobs to take their lives in the name of their "cause".

If you don't share my ideology of equal treatment for all people in America under the eyes of the law then I'm glad that I don't know you.

 

[Rams0307]

I can easily justify it. But if it would make you feel better...I'll use more precise wording. The officer negligently or recklessly committed homicide by killing Eric Garner with his banned chokehold.

Now that the semantics are out of the way...you can go ahead and justify the unlawful killing of a man simply because the killer was a cop.

And then you'll understand why crap like this is happening. The guy who murdered those cops was a nutjob looking for attention...but as long as people continue to allow cops to do those things and get away with it, you'll enable the nutjobs to take their lives in the name of their "cause".

If you don't share my ideology of equal treatment for all people in America under the eyes of the law then I'm glad that I don't know you.

Semantics? If calling someone a murderer is semantics to you, you're pathological.

And don't tell me I can justify the killing of a man when you know nothing about my viewpoint on that case. If you believed in equal treatment for all, you wouldn't be calling someone a murderer while having no proof that what he did was premeditated. That is what is prejudicial about your statement and shows your true colors.

 

[Thordaddy]

You're making leaps in logic that you can't justify and making claims that are absurdly prejudicial. I am glad I don't share your ideology.

The hold Garner was put in was not a banned choke hold it was the one prescribed by the academy and nothing will change that ,calling it a homicide is intellectual dishonesty of the first order. It matters not that the guy resisted arrest to these people and the police officers alternatives, other than just let him continue his unlawful behavior, all had potential for death and or injury to not ONLY the person being arrested but also to the police officer .
Murdered was what was alleged and that is so absurd as to barely be worth responding TO or discussed with those who talk themselves into seeing it that way.
FWIW though if this is an issue of ideology, I fail to see it unless one is an anarchist everyone be they of most any other ideology aught to be in favor of the rule of law and understand that those who are charged with enforcement are in receipt of certain extra legal powers among them to exert physical force and even when they result in death it doesn't warrant absurd charges like murder,if Garner had been "murdered " by a hold he would have been pronounced dead at the scene he was breathing when he left the scene ,not being "choked" he died when he went into cardiac arrest an hour later ,he had a heart condition ,I suppose the police could have perps fill out a medical inventory before they decide which sort of method they need to employ when apprehending them, but even given ALL the charges against this officer being true ,it STILL wouldn't justify the bigotry that is manifest in the generalizing it to the whole of police and pretty well is a prime indicator as to why they come to the "murder" conclusion in the first place.
I also find it incredulous that after the "nutjob" does his deed spouting the hate speech propagated by the people who claim "murder" they want to blame people who CAN see the culpability of Eric Garner in his own demise and aren't blinded by bigotry toward police.

 

[jrry32]

Semantics? If calling someone a murderer is semantics to you, you're pathological.

And don't tell me I can justify the killing of a man when you know nothing about my viewpoint on that case. If you believed in equal treatment for all, you wouldn't be calling someone a murderer while having no proof that what he did was premeditated. That is what is prejudicial about your statement and shows your true colors.

The majority common law standard for premeditation is that holding a gun and squeezing the trigger is enough premeditation. You don't have to have consciously planned what you're going to do or had to have any time to think it through.

So the time difference between him seeing Garner and reaching out to choke him would be enough for premeditation.

But FYI, there is no premeditation requirement in New York's statute for second degree murder.

The issue with charging murder would be proving the high mens rea. Which is why he should have been charged with negligent or reckless homicide.

The guy unlawfully killed Eric Garner, I think murderer fits. Especially considering there's no short word for involuntary manslaughterer.

 

[jrry32]

The hold Garner was put in was not a banned choke hold it was the one prescribed by the academy and nothing will change that ,calling it a homicide is intellectual dishonesty of the first order. It matters not that the guy resisted arrest to these people and the police officers alternatives, other than just let him continue his unlawful behavior, all had potential for death and or injury to not ONLY the person being arrested but also to the police officer .
Murdered was what was alleged and that is so absurd as to barely be worth responding TO or discussed with those who talk themselves into seeing it that way.
FWIW though if this is an issue of ideology, I fail to see it unless one is an anarchist everyone be they of most any other ideology aught to be in favor of the rule of law and understand that those who are charged with enforcement are in receipt of certain extra legal powers among them to exert physical force and even when they result in death it doesn't warrant absurd charges like murder,if Garner had been "murdered " by a hold he would have been pronounced dead at the scene he was breathing when he left the scene ,not being "choked" he died when he went into cardiac arrest an hour later ,he had a heart condition ,I suppose the police could have perps fill out a medical inventory before they decide which sort of method they need to employ when apprehending them, but even given ALL the charges against this officer being true ,it STILL wouldn't justify the bigotry that is manifest in the generalizing it to the whole of police and pretty well is a prime indicator as to why they come to the "murder" conclusion in the first place.
I also find it incredulous that after the "nutjob" does his deed spouting the hate speech propagated by the people who claim "murder" they want to blame people who CAN see the culpability of Eric Garner in his own demise and aren't blinded by bigotry toward police.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyregion/kelly-bans-choke-holds-by-officers.html
The officer in the Garner video clearly had a chokehold.

I am a bigot towards police? This is why I avoid political discussions. You're a racist. That's how I'm supposed to respond, right?

Eggshell victim rule. Look it up.

Because he died later does not make them innocent of causing his death. So no, you're legally wrong about the bold.

Anyways, as I said before, you wouldn't charge murder because of the high mens rea that accompanies it. I doubt you could reach the level of extreme recklessness necessary in the New York murder statute.

However, you could charge manslaughter in the second degree or criminally negligent homicide depending on the mens rea you could meet.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Almost every department both local and federal has banned that choke hold. NYPD banned that hold back in the 80's, and has pretty strict regulations on the use of choke holds. Most major departments do, most only allow one or two types of choke holds, and those are from the rear.