patrick.net

dodgerfanjohn says

Grand jury testimony composed 100% of the fact set.

Grand jury composed 100% of the evidence. That's not fact. It's testimony. That's a big difference.

All the morons rooting on the police state, are setting a very dangerous precedent for us real American men. I'm 6' 250lb of immovable force. So any female cop could shoot me dead and have protection on the ground of fear. Fear that she would be overpowered and I'd take her gun

Because that's what Quigley and his band of merry retards are defending here. That David Wilson is a pussy and he reacted out of fear. It's a fact. All of his friends have said as much. That he is a punk ass bitch that got scared of the blackteen so he gunned him down.

I hope Quigley can get the chance to defend police after they mistakenly serve a no knock warrant at his house and unload100s of rounds into the faces of his wife and children

errc says

rooting on the police state

Many americans who are middle class and above perceive the police to be the agents who stand between them and the hordes of the poor or criminals in general that can break into their homes or confront them on the street and rob/murder them in the hypothetical world where the police does not exist. Thus, they cheer and primarily this issue is about class, race being the secondary variable. The reason these beliefs persist is that america has much greater freedom of movement (as a U.S. citizen you are entitled to go anywhere in the country with no questions asked) which further exacerbates the fear of this potential reality manifesting itself.

But ultimately those who cheer a "police state" don't have any experience with a "real" police state such as NVKD communist thugs or nazi gestapo. In soviet union in the 1930s if your neighboor didn't like you they could make up all sort of charges and NVKD would ahem permanently relocate you. That was the true unity of the proletariat!

Haha, yes! Thanks, dodgerfanjohn. You made my point ahead of the plan! All of this stuff I posted about is peripherals. Things like class and race and family history are what has been paraded through the media for months, with them making Michael brown out to be Jesus or something close. Peripherals are the entire case against Wilson. Even Holder is trying to make a case on peripherals for racial discrimination. All the bullshit that's been flying around has deluded quite a few into thinking that it matters. What matters is that MB attacked a cop, repeatedly, and got shot for it. Case fucking closed.

Quigley says

What matters is that MB attacked a cop, repeatedly, and got shot for it. Case fucking closed.

Other than the shooter's testimony, what do we have for evidence?

The DA released all the evidence and put it online. Do your own homework for once!

Quigley says

The DA released all the evidence and put it online. Do your own homework for once!

lol--since you posted so vehemently that MB attacked a cop, repeatedly, I figured you must have that evidence handy. Otherwise, you'd be just as bad as those you condemn.

tatupu70 says

Quigley says

The DA released all the evidence and put it online. Do your own homework for once!

lol--since you posted so vehemently that MB attacked a cop, repeatedly, I figured you must have that evidence handy. Otherwise, you'd be just as bad as those you condemn.

You're just being ignorant now. A 7 year old child stamping his feet while covering his ears.

There was forensic evidence backing the officers version of events as well as credible eye witness testimony that corresponded with the officers version of events AND the forensic evidence.

dodgerfanjohn says

You're just being ignorant now. A 7 year old child stamping his feet while covering his ears.

There was forensic evidence backing the officers version of events as well as credible eye witness testimony that corresponded with the officers version of events AND the forensic evidence

Really? I just asked Quigley to state the evidence that supports MB attacking Officer Wilson on two separate occasions. I don't need to cover my ears because he didn't state the evidence...

dodgerfanjohn says

There was forensic evidence backing the officers version of events as well as
credible eye witness testimony that corresponded with the officers version of
events AND the forensic evidence.

Liberals H8 Science!

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

You're just being ignorant now. A 7 year old child stamping his feet while covering his ears.

There was forensic evidence backing the officers version of events as well as credible eye witness testimony that corresponded with the officers version of events AND the forensic evidence

Really? I just asked Quigley to state the evidence that supports MB attacking Officer Wilson on two separate occasions. I don't need to cover my ears because he didn't state the evidence...

It's a disertation that would take too much effort to post id imagine, which is why he pointed you to the grand jury testimony.

The short of it is that officer Wilsons testimony states as such, as does the testimony of other witnesses. Combine this with forensic evidence introduced to the grand jury via reports and medical examiner testimony and the version laid out by officer wilson is not only believable, it is factually true.

This is damning evidence...

dodgerfanjohn says

Combine this with forensic evidence introduced to the grand jury via reports and medical examiner testimony and the version laid out by officer wilson is not only believable, it is factually true.

This is a mighty unusual case.

According to PBS, of 29 witnesses or so, 16 backed the story that after Brown ran, he turned around and was surrendering with had his hands up. But yes there are several that say he charged the cop.

Doubtful that there were that many actual witnesses.

Either a bunch of people are coming forward to lie and try to negate the cops story.

Or a bunch of people are coming forward to lie, to negate Browns friends story.

I find it very hard to believe that there are that many opposing views of people that actually saw it. But if there are that many that saw it, and more than half really think he was surrendering, then he couldn't have been charging the cop very hard.

Could the truth be in between, that he was surrendering, but walking towards Wilson and none the less scaring Wilson ?

One thing for sure, and that is that the "prosecutor" at the grand jury didn't believe he had a case he wanted to go to trial. But the thing is, it wasn't the objective of the grand jury to determine guilt. They were only supposed to determine if it was a legitimate question (re: Wilsons guilt), that is a legitimate charge. There should have been a prosecutor there who decided say to argue for a charge of criminal negligence on the part of the cop. Or maybe even second degree murder. No exculpatory evidence or testimony should have been reviewed. That is a function of the trial, which would have a real prosecutor and a real defense attorneys. Not just a single "prosecutor" acting in the role of defending the cop.

They did not do the job they were supposed to do.

According to precedent (Scalia):

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/justice-scalia-explains-why-ferguson-grand-jury-was-completely-wrong

errc says

That David Wilson is a pussy and he reacted out of fear. It's a fact. All of his friends have said as much. That he is a punk ass bitch that got scared of the blackteen so he gunned him down.

I think this is exactly correct. He was an incompetent cop, that should not have had to kill wilson. Does that mean it was murder ? Second degree perhaps ? We'll never know because of the fraudulent grand jury that took place.

Hi,

The medical examiners said that there was no way Brown had his hands in the air when Wilson shot.

So exclude any witnesses saying brown had his hands in the air or was shot in the back. Normally I'd allow for bad memory but not in this case. Too many people are lying and their testimony is entirely unreliable.

Btw for you dumb slaps out there, normally witnesses whose testimony is contrary to incontrovertible evidence never see the light of day. Either the cops, the DA, or the defense attorney seems them as unreliable and won't put them on the stand. But in this case the DA decided that him making the decision to prosecute would not be the best path to take.

One more thing...in the US a juror can disregard ALL testimony by a witness who they believe only lied about one thing.

It seems like Brown really did charge the cop to some extent, and in my opinion whether it was criminal negligence or worse on the part of the cop (OR NOT) would be dependent on how aggressively Brown charged the cop, especially after being shot a couple times. So a trial probably should have occurred, but it only would have occurred if there was a prosecutor at the grand jury fighting for such a charge to have been brought against Wilson.

That did not happen. The grand jury had a "prosecutor" who wanted to prove that no charges should be brought against Wilson.

dodgerfanjohn says

One more thing...in the US a juror can disregard ALL testimony by a witness
who they believe only lied about one thing.

Keep in mind the whole "Hands Up" testimony came from Brown's friend Dorian Johnson who just got done robbing the convenience store with Brown a few minutes before the shooting.

Also, Dorian Johnson has previously been convicted for lying to cops.

But I suspect Libs will continue to go with their "feelings" on this case as opposed to the evidence and truth.

socal2 says

dodgerfanjohn says

There was forensic evidence backing the officers version of events as well as

credible eye witness testimony that corresponded with the officers version of

events AND the forensic evidence.

Liberals H8 Science!

Most liberals aren't old enough to know any better, it's mostly very young people who are idealistic and are not familiar with how life works.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/

socal2 says

But I suspect Libs will continue to go with their "feelings" on this case as opposed to the evidence and truth.

You're the epitome of someone who bases their opinion on feelings. You say one guy had that story ?

Try 16 !! Yes, maybe some or all of these could be disregarded ? I really don't know. But it's a far cry from this outright lie.

socal2 says

Keep in mind the whole "Hands Up" testimony came from Brown's friend Dorian Johnson who just got done robbing the convenience store with Brown a few minutes before the shooting.

Go here for a summary of what the different witnesses said.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/

THat's right, 16 said he put his hands up. Maybe he did put his hands up, but then changed his mind and charged. Or maybe he had his hands up and walked toward WIlson, and was shot and then charged and was shot some more. We just don't know !!

Hey, maybe he never put his hands up and those 16 people are lying. That's possible. What we do know for certain though is it wasn't just Johnson that said that he had his hands up.

Socal2 and FortDumb, If you want to accuse liberals of something, you should just accuse them of having a reasonable intelligence and using it.

dodgerfanjohn says

The short of it is that officer Wilsons testimony states as such, as does the testimony of other witnesses. Combine this with forensic evidence introduced to the grand jury via reports and medical examiner testimony and the version laid out by officer wilson is not only believable, it is factually true.

Again--I think folks here have difficulty understating what a fact is. Officer Wilson's testimony is backed by some other witnesses and some of the forensic evidence. But his version is contradicted by several witnesses and some of the forensic evidence is not supportive of his version.

And it also depends on which of Wilson's statements you are listening to--the grand jury or his initial report. You know that he embellished quite a bit in his grand jury statement, right?

In any event, none of it qualifies as a fact.

By the way, a couple of other observations.

One of the wounds on Browns arm was previously said to be from being shot from behind or with arms up.

The gun was unloaded, I think 12 (?) shots fired of which I believe 6 hit brown.

Now since the most likely misses would have occurred while brown was furthest away, it's not impossibly that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, as many witnesses said. People say that witnesses who said he was shot while running away are lying, and that their testimony is therefore worthless. This is not so clear. Maybe Wilson did fire at him and missed while he was running away.

It's even possible that Wilson missed on purpose when Brown was running away, telling him to stop, at which time he turned around and then ?

humanity says

You're the epitome of someone who bases their opinion on feelings. You say
one guy had that story ?

Try 16 !! Yes, maybe some or all of these could be disregarded ? I really
don't know. But it's a far cry from this outright lie.

I said "one guy" (Dorian Johnson - who just robbed the store and was convicted of lying before) is the main guy who started the whole "Hands up" meme that has swept the country.

Before the Grand Jury testimony was released last week, Dorian Johnson was the only witness the media and race hustlers were treating as Gospel.

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

The short of it is that officer Wilsons testimony states as such, as does the testimony of other witnesses. Combine this with forensic evidence introduced to the grand jury via reports and medical examiner testimony and the version laid out by officer wilson is not only believable, it is factually true.

Again--I think folks here have difficulty understating what a fact is. Officer Wilson's testimony is backed by some other witnesses and some of the forensic evidence. But his version is contradicted by several witnesses and some of the forensic evidence is not supportive of his version.

And it also depends on which of Wilson's statements you are listening to--the grand jury or his initial report. You know that he embellished quite a bit in his grand jury statement, right?

In any event, none of it qualifies as a fact.

It qualifies as fact when it's either

a. Supported by forensic evidence or
B. Contradicted only by people who are lying.

There are no witnesses who support Wilsons version who are lying.

Every witness who contradicted Wilsons version was lying as demonstrated by forensic evidence that showed brown was not shot in the back not was he shot with his hands raised.

humanity says

By the way, a couple of other observations.

One of the wounds on Browns arm was previously said to be from being shot from behind or with arms up.

The gun was unloaded, I think 12 (?) shots fired of which I believe 6 hit brown.

Now since the most likely misses would have occurred while brown was furthest away, it's not impossibly that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, as many witnesses said. People say that witnesses who said he was shot while running away are lying, and that their testimony is therefore worthless. This is not so clear. Maybe Wilson did fire at him and missed while he was running away.

It's even possible that Wilson missed on purpose when Brown was running away, telling him to stop, at which time he turned around and then ?

Now this is just odd conjecture on your part, and not at all supported by fact or testimony.

dodgerfanjohn says

It qualifies as fact when it's either

a. Supported by forensic evidence or

B. Contradicted only by people who are lying.

There are no witnesses who support Wilsons version who are lying.

Every witness who contradicted Wilsons version was lying as demonstrated by forensic evidence that showed brown was not shot in the back not was he shot with his hands raised.

You really need to dig into the testimony a bit more because you have some of it wrong. But, you've clearly shown that you don't know what a fact is....

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

It qualifies as fact when it's either

a. Supported by forensic evidence or

B. Contradicted only by people who are lying.

There are no witnesses who support Wilsons version who are lying.

Every witness who contradicted Wilsons version was lying as demonstrated by forensic evidence that showed brown was not shot in the back not was he shot with his hands raised.

You really need to dig into the testimony a bit more because you have some of it wrong. But, you've clearly shown that you don't know what a fact is....

No. You who disagree with the GJ decision are the one who has things wrong.

That you give credence to witnesses who lied is all anyone needs to hear.

dodgerfanjohn says

No. You who disagree with the GJ decision are the one who has things wrong.

Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.

One need not give credence to lying witnesses to have questions about the grand jury process in this case

tatupu70 says

Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.

Keep fighting the good fight, Tatupu.

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

No. You who disagree with the GJ decision are the one who has things wrong.

Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.

One need not give credence to lying witnesses to have questions about the grand jury process in this case

Rethink what you wrote. No insults from me this time even though your statement in context displays an extraordinary unfamiliarity with US law.

Exactly what crime are we charging Michael Brown with? Consider this carefully in light of the fact that the grand jury couldn't even bring charges for manslaughter. Consider that they had the exact same standard as a criminal preliminary trial. Consider what happens in a prelim hearing in the US. While I don't know the exact numbers, I'd take a not so large leap that 98% of cases that go to a preliminary hearing in US criminal felony cases are situations where the defendant is held to answer(that is it goes to trial). Also consider that some of the worst judges are kept doing preliminaries indefinitely(at least in California). The DA's that make the worst judges and the most left leaning individuals you can find. Its because since the standard is so low that a bad judge can't fuck it up(most of the time). So that was the standard the grand jury had.

In light of what I presume is information you were not aware of, I ask again, what crime are you charging Officer Wilson with?

I'll give you a starting point: You seem to believe that there is some magical third option here...that somehow there was some outcome possible other than a grand jury hearing or the DA declining to press charges against Officer Wilson. Theres not.

dodgerfanjohn says

Exactly what crime are we charging Michael Brown with? Consider this carefully in light of the fact that the grand jury couldn't even bring charges for manslaughter

That's my point. I don't want to charge him with a different crime, I want the prosecutor to act like a prosecutor and actually try for an indictment.

I'm familiar with how US law works which is why I know how a grand jury would work for anyone else accused of manslaughter. The prosecutor would not present any conflicting evidence, would not allow any other accused to testify for 4 hours, would not show unreliable witnesses.

The prosecutor's job is to get an indictment. Period.

Unfortunately, this prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor....

Impossible to rethink when he never thought about it the first time.

dodgerfanjohn says

Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.

One need not give credence to lying witnesses to have questions about the grand jury process in this case

Rethink what you wrote.

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

Exactly what crime are we charging Michael Brown with? Consider this carefully in light of the fact that the grand jury couldn't even bring charges for manslaughter

That's my point. I don't want to charge him with a different crime, I want the prosecutor to act like a prosecutor and actually try for an indictment.

I'm familiar with how US law works which is why I know how a grand jury would work for anyone else accused of manslaughter. The prosecutor would not present any conflicting evidence, would not allow any other accused to testify for 4 hours, would not show unreliable witnesses.

The prosecutor's job is to get an indictment. Period.

Unfortunately, this prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor....

You still don't get it. The case would never get charged. There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with. Even if he did, ANY judge at the preliminary hearing would find that Wilson could not be held to answer...because....tada....no crime had been committed.

Of course you will find this to be true when Eric Holder never files federal charges....same as George Zimmerman. And when a commie thug like Holder doesn't file charges....you truly know that there is nothing there.

That's the crux of it. tatupu is mad because the GJ procedure was not followed. He ignores the fact that this case should never have been taken to the GJ.
The only reason it occurred was to placate the mob, which was a mistake to begin with as it only enraged them further.
The evidence the prosecutor had that was backed up by forensics pointed to "No grand jury needed". His hand was forced by Holder and the feds.
He was not going to sacrifice his integrity by trying to get an indictment where he felt there was no forensics backed evidence, so he basically threw it to the GJ and said, "here, you decide"...

dodgerfanjohn says

You still don't get it. The case would never get charged.

There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...

It's always the minor leaguers that are the sacrificial lambs...

dodgerfanjohn says

You still don't get it. The case would never get charged. There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with. Even if he did, ANY judge at the preliminary hearing would find that Wilson could not be held to answer...because....tada....no crime had been committed.

Of course you will find this to be true when Eric Holder never files federal charges....same as George Zimmerman. And when a commie thug like Holder doesn't file charges....you truly know that there is nothing there.

I think you are confused about how the justice system works. Of course there was potential crime committed. An unarmed man was shot and killed. If you are arguing that the prosecutor shouldn't have gone for an indictment, that's a different discussion. All I can say is that many, many indictments have been returned with less.

SoftShell says

That's the crux of it. tatupu is mad because the GJ procedure was not followed. He ignores the fact that this case should never have been taken to the GJ.

I don't ignore it--it's a reasonable argument. But, once you decide to go to a grand jury, it shouldn't be a sham. That's my point.

SoftShell says

There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...

If you're going to troll me, you need to try a bit harder.

PCGyver says

dodgerfanjohn says

There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with

BS

There are crimes they could have charged Wilson with.

You are innocent until proven guilty. But in this country, for cops, you are innocent unless there is a video proving otherwise and then just maybe there will be a trial and you might be proven guilty.

Your statement borders on idiocy.

Google search any of these convicted cops and tell me which ones were caught on video:

William Ferguson LAPD
David Mack LAPD
Rafael Perez LAPD
James Sexton LA County Sheriffs

That's just off the top of my head.

No troll.
Just telling it like it is. You don't see wogboy or danny front and center, do you? If your case was so compelling where are the demo heavy hitters?

tatupu70 says

There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...

If you're going to troll me, you need to try a bit harder.

SoftShell says

No troll.

Just telling it like it is. You don't see wogboy or danny front and center, do you? If your case was so compelling where are the demo heavy hitters?

lol--why don't you stick to pointing out the "damning evidence" from other posters. Or making bad puns.

That's clearly your strong suit.