Michael Brown Shooting: The Aftermath of the Grand Jury Decision

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Has there been mention of the "#crimingwhilewhite" hashtag yet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/business/media/grand-jury-decision-leads-to-confessions-of-crimingwhilewhite.html?_r=0

People absolutely are treated differently by police, and by society at large, based on racial characteristics.

What is this, Reefer Madness? Weed doesn't make people hyper-aggressive, liable to start fights with cops, and able to shrug off gun wounds to keep charging. That's another detail that makes me really doubt Wilson's characterization of events.

So the blood trail moving towards Wilson was fabricated?

[DanteGabriel]

How exactly would Wilson have told a white kid to get out of the road any differently than a black kid? Your suggesting there is some thing racial about a cop telling someone to get out of the road. I contend that he's just doing his job, regardless of the ethnicity of the individual he's speaking to. There seems to be a lot talk about what Wilson could have /should have done differently, yet no accountability on Brown's part.

This is another one of those cases where it seems you're so adeptly missing the point that it does seem like you're being deliberately obtuse or trolling.

Ingrained racial bias (which just about everyone has) makes black men scarier in people's eyes. Makes cops more likely to assume the worst of them, act more harshly with them, react with more fear and panic to them, than if they were dealing with a white kid. It's not like a cop necessarily has a conscious thought, "Oh, here's a black person, I'm going to be more of a dick than I would to a white person!" -- though maybe some cops do think that. No, it's subconscious influence on basic emotions and thought processes.

People have said Brown shouldn't have done what he did. Honestly -- it probably goes without saying you shouldn't talk back to a cop or try and get in a fight with them. But the topic of Brown's accountability is a moot point, because he was killed in the street for whatever mistakes he made, while Darren Wilson was given time and professional cover to get his story straight, preferential treatment by the prosecutor, and ultimately won't even have to defend his actions in a court of law. Brown was a civilian and a teenager. Teenagers do dumb things. Wilson is a trained police officer. He should have known better. And if we don't expect far more from our police than Darren Wilson, we are all fucked.

So the blood trail moving towards Wilson was fabricated?

All a blood trail proves is which direction Brown was moving. I do find it hard to believe that a possibly stoned, unarmed teenager who'd been shot multiple times "charged" at Wilson and posed a serious threat to Wilson's life. I think Wilson got into a panic and fear-frenzy and overestimated the threat Brown posed to him.

[Jslay427]

Yeah but other than knowing Brown was high at some point in the 48 hours before he was shot, what's your point? And I don't know what your experience is with weed but it doesn't seem to have any correlation with violence.

Not within 48 hours. Within a couple hours. 48 is not a couple. Weed affects everyone differently, if you knew anything you would know that.

[DanteGabriel]

Weed affects everyone differently, if you knew anything you would know that.

So, yes, you are going with the "Reefer Madness" take on this -- that weed made Michael Brown hyper-aggressive and able to shrug off gunshot wounds.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Replying to karaddin:

I don't know -- depending on their positions, I could see Wilson turning to his left to speak to Brown, or even putting his head out the window, exposing the right side of his face more than if he's just facing directly forward. I think it would still be extremely awkward for him to get hit on the right side, but it's possible.

I imagine that there's a very big helping of Dante's explanation as well, though.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

This isn't true. Your characterization of the witnesses reliability isn't based on any factual account, it's just your opinion. There are inconsistencies with Witness #10, the one labeled "reliable" by the prosecutor. Specifically, how far away he was from the incident, and also his accounts of Brown's actions. None of the other witnesses were proven to be lying, that's just your interpretation.

Witnesses sweating Brown was shot in the back were lying. And their testimony was not deemed credible. Because, you know, he wasn't shot in the back.

[DanteGabriel]

Witnesses sweating Brown was shot in the back were lying. And their testimony was not deemed credible. Because, you know, he wasn't shot in the back.

It would be more precise to say that none of the bullets that hit Brown hit him from behind. It is still possible that Wilson shot at Brown as he was fleeing, and missed those shots.

[Jslay427]

So, yes, you are going with the "Reefer Madness" take on this -- that weed made Michael Brown hyper-aggressive and able to shrug off gunshot wounds.

Could it have impaired his judgement? I think so. I no where suggested that the weed made Brown think he was in GTA 5.

[K-26dp]

Yeah but that's just not true. There were three breaks in the gunfire. Brown at any point could have surrendered during those pauses. And many of the witnesses claiming he had his hands up in surrender were proven to be lying by the testimony of more reliable witnesses. They were the same witnesses claiming he was shot in the back, which was clearly not the case.

All of this should have been brought up by Wilson's defense attorney in his trial. Unfortunately, the grand jury ignored it's mandate to determine probably cause, and now there will be no trial.

[TrueMetis]

Witnesses sweating Brown was shot in the back were lying. And their testimony was not deemed credible. Because, you know, he wasn't shot in the back.

You know fuck all about how memory works and should stop acting like you do and accusing people of lying.

[DanteGabriel]

Could it have impaired his judgement? I think so. I no where suggested that the weed made Brown think he was in GTA 5.

I've been arguing for a while that one of the most unbelievable things about Wilson's version of events is that Brown picked a fight with him and kept charging at him even after he'd been shot. Given what I know about weed, and what most research bears out, that behavior is hard to square with someone who was supposedly stoned. You're the one who keeps citing weed as if it explains Brown's actions. Well, I'm drawing the line between your harping on the point about weed, and what Brown is alleged to have done by the guy who shot him in the street.

[Jslay427]

You know fuck all about how memory works and should stop acting like you do and accusing people of lying.

Your telling me that the numerous eye-witness account that were proved wrong were simply them not remembering correctly? I've got to go see a guy about a bridge.

[karaddin]

Replying to karaddin:

I don't know -- depending on their positions, I could see Wilson turning to his left to speak to Brown, or even putting his head out the window, exposing the right side of his face more than if he's just facing directly forward. I think it would still be extremely awkward for him to get hit on the right side, but it's possible.

I imagine that there's a very big helping of Dante's explanation as well, though.

I can see scenarios which result in exposing it, but I don't feel they square with his narrative of what happened. I also struggle to accept blows which manage to land on his right cheek would put him in fear for his life.

Regardless I would have thought a prosecutor seeking a trial would have sought explanation for this seemingly problematic piece of physical evidence, yet I hadn't seen this point raised before. It's almost like the prosecutor wasn't trying!

[DanteGabriel]

Your telling me that the numerous eye-witness account that were proved wrong were simply them not remembering correctly? I've got to go see a guy about a bridge.

There are tons of studies about the unreliability of memory. Discussed numerous times in this thread and its predecessors.

I can see scenarios which result in exposing it, but I don't feel they square with his narrative of what happened. I also struggle to accept blows which manage to land on his right cheek would put him in fear for his life.

Regardless I would have thought a prosecutor seeking a trial would have sought explanation for this seemingly problematic piece of physical evidence, yet I hadn't seen this point raised before. It's almost like the prosecutor wasn't trying!

I can't imagine why a prosecutor whose dad was a cop killed in the line of duty by a black man, who works in a community with a history of racial inequality, would have given less than optimal effort in this case...

[TrueMetis]

Your telling me that the numerous eye-witness account that were proved wrong were simply them not remembering correctly? I've got to go see a guy about a bridge.

YES! Human memory is not perfect, people remember shit differently than how it actually happened constantly. Did you not even bother to glance at the video I linked on this very subject?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

This is another one of those cases where it seems you're so adeptly missing the point that it does seem like you're being deliberately obtuse or trolling.

Ingrained racial bias (which just about everyone has) makes black men scarier in people's eyes. Makes cops more likely to assume the worst of them, act more harshly with them, react with more fear and panic to them, than if they were dealing with a white kid. It's not like a cop necessarily has a conscious thought, "Oh, here's a black person, I'm going to be more of a dick than I would to a white person!" -- though maybe some cops do think that. No, it's subconscious influence on basic emotions and thought processes.

People have said Brown shouldn't have done what he did. Honestly -- it probably goes without saying you shouldn't talk back to a cop or try and get in a fight with them. But the topic of Brown's accountability is a moot point, because he was killed in the street for whatever mistakes he made, while Darren Wilson was given time and professional cover to get his story straight, preferential treatment by the prosecutor, and ultimately won't even have to defend his actions in a court of law. Brown was a civilian and a teenager. Teenagers do dumb things. Wilson is a trained police officer. He should have known better. And if we don't expect far more from our police than Darren Wilson, we are all fucked.

All a blood trail proves is which direction Brown was moving. I do find it hard to believe that a possibly stoned, unarmed teenager who'd been shot multiple times "charged" at Wilson and posed a serious threat to Wilson's life. I think Wilson got into a panic and fear-frenzy and overestimated the threat Brown posed to him.

Why didn't Brown leave the street when asked? Why did Brown assault Wilson? Why did Brown not stop or get down to surrender? These are simple questions. Trying to deflect the blame on Wilson is a lazy way of saying you won't answer these questions.

The evidence of the case clearly shows Brown is the aggressor. As you said, he shouldn't have acted the way he did. His actions are not a moot point, they are the reason the situation escalated to the level it did.

This admission is the closest to rational thought I've seen you express on the issue.

[Maithanet]

Regardless I would have thought a prosecutor seeking a trial would have sought explanation for this seemingly problematic piece of physical evidence, yet I hadn't seen this point raised before. It's almost like the prosecutor wasn't trying!

The prosecutor was, at the very least, presenting all evidence, both that which supports his case and that which supported Wilson's story (which is highly unusual in an indictment hearing). I've read articles arguing that the prosecutor's exploration of issues which cast doubt on witnesses like Dorian Johnson and complete failure to do the same with Darren Wilson's story amount to an active, if subtle, defense on the part of the prosecuting attorney.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

It would be more precise to say that none of the bullets that hit Brown hit him from behind. It is still possible that Wilson shot at Brown as he was fleeing, and missed those shots.

Well that depends on the testimony, most of which says that wasn't the case.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I can see scenarios which result in exposing it, but I don't feel they square with his narrative of what happened. I also struggle to accept blows which manage to land on his right cheek would put him in fear for his life.

Regardless I would have thought a prosecutor seeking a trial would have sought explanation for this seemingly problematic piece of physical evidence, yet I hadn't seen this point raised before. It's almost like the prosecutor wasn't trying!

Don't be silly! Next you'll tell me the grand jury was misled. (I'm looking for something direct from the AG's office, or something non-Raw, non-Kos, but haven't found anything yet.)

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

You know fuck all about how memory works and should stop acting like you do and accusing people of lying.

? Brown wasn't shot in the back. That's fact. The people testifying he was were either lying or mistaken and proven wrong by the evidence. Either way it wasn't credible testimony. Thanks for the insults though...