Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
DomesticViolenceByProxy

Ferguson Grand Juror Is Suing the Prosecutor to Remove Gag Order

Recommended Posts

This should be interesting. Given the circumstances I don't know how "Doe" can be denied the right to offer his perspective of how the process was conducted.

"In Plaintiff's view, the current information available about the grand jurors' views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," according to the lawsuit. "Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors' view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with Plaintiff's own."

Under Missouri law, it is a misdemeanor for grand jury members to disclose evidence or information about witnesses who appear before them.

James Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University School of Law, said the Missouri statute was designed to reflect the typical circumstance, where grand jury proceedings are held secretly. But in this case, the prosecutor's office spoke extensively about the process and published transcripts and other evidence presented to the panel.

"This is a grand juror who wants to say some things that are in contrast to how McCulloch represented the process," Cohen said. "It's going to be very hard — I'm not going to say impossible — for a judge to say credibly we're not going to let you do this."

Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri, said the grand juror, if allowed to speak, could help state lawmakers as they review suggested legislation that has been proposed in the aftermath of Brown's death.

"Currently, our elected officials have only one side of the story," Mittman said. "They have the government's view and the Constitution doesn't permit that. In this case, we have a grand juror who respects the grand jury process and has said I have information that is important and that legislators need to know, that can inform the public about these important public policy questions."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without saying anything about decision of the grand jury, it's hard to argue they had the right witness testimony given that the "key witness" is a freaking lunatic of a woman who claimed she just happened to be in the neighborhood to learn how black people live and has a disturbing history of racism. Had she been put on a stand in a trial, she would have been laughed out of the courtroom. The prosecutor gave the grand jury her testimony as if it were fact.

 

mrnn

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely the grand juror sees a lot of money to be made writing a book on the grand jury proceedings of the case.


Without saying anything about decision of the grand jury, it's hard to argue they had the right witness testimony given that the "key witness" is a freaking lunatic of a woman who claimed she just happened to be in the neighborhood to learn how black people live and has a disturbing history of racism. Had she been put on a stand in a trial, she would have been laughed out of the courtroom. The prosecutor gave the grand jury her testimony as if it were fact.

 

mrnn

Don't forget she wasn't the only witness to be heard.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely the grand juror sees a lot of money to be made writing a book on the grand jury proceedings of the case.

Don't forget she wasn't the only witness to be heard.

 

Capitalism at it's finest. Doesn't make the grand juror any less credible does it? The police officer quit the force and is making money doing interviews right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Capitalism at it's finest. Doesn't make the grand juror any less credible does it? The police officer quit the force and is making money doing interviews right?

How many interviews has Wilson given? I've seen just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Capitalism at it's finest. Doesn't make the grand juror any less credible does it? The police officer quit the force and is making money doing interviews right?

 

I heard he's going on tour with Sarah Palin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many interviews has Wilson given? I've seen just one.

 

Not sure but it's at least one more than the grand juror has given.

Edited by Domestic Violence by Proxy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are those of you who think the grand jury based their decision not to prosecute Wilson on one witness alone. That's absurd as they heard testimony from many people.

 

What I find difficult to believe is with the capability to video anything with a cell phone, not one single witness who claimed they saw the event take place from beginning to end produced any video taken with their cell phone. We've seen a few videos of the events immediately following the shooting, but not one single video of the shooting itself. I find that very odd; especially with all the people who claimed they saw it happen.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are those of you who think the grand jury based their decision not to prosecute Wilson on one witness alone. That's absurd as they heard testimony from many people.

 

What I find difficult to believe is with the capability to video anything with a cell phone, not one single witness who claimed they saw the event take place from beginning to end produced any video taken with their cell phone. We've seen a few videos of the events immediately following the shooting, but not one single video of the shooting itself. I find that very odd; especially with all the people who claimed they saw it happen.

 

That is absurd.

 

I'm much more interested in hearing the grand juror's thoughts than the prosecutor - who only met cursively with the grand jury (most presentation was by underlings) - and certainly your reading as based on the DA's obviously misguided bloviation.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are those of you who think the grand jury based their decision not to prosecute Wilson on one witness alone. That's absurd as they heard testimony from many people.

 

What I find difficult to believe is with the capability to video anything with a cell phone, not one single witness who claimed they saw the event take place from beginning to end produced any video taken with their cell phone. We've seen a few videos of the events immediately following the shooting, but not one single video of the shooting itself. I find that very odd; especially with all the people who claimed they saw it happen.

 

 

The oddity, E Z, is the fact that policemen only insight riots because their officials back them up, no matter what, so much of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is absurd.

 

I'm much more interested in hearing the grand juror's thoughts than the prosecutor - who only met cursively with the grand jury (most presentation was by underlings) - and certainly your reading as based on the DA's obviously misguided bloviation.

 

pubby

What your saying is assistant DA's are not qualified to present cases to a grand jury.

 

You dispute the fact that there were several witnesses who testified before the grand jury who claim they saw the shooting?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What your saying is assistant DA's are not qualified to present cases to a grand jury.

 

You dispute the fact that there were several witnesses who testified before the grand jury who claim they saw the shooting?

 

 

It was a blue wall set up, E Z, there were two sides and the blue wall won, SO FAR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mean while, in a ghetto not in the spotlight, 30 (average) more homicides will happen today, 30 more tomorrow, and 30 more the following, 900 the next month, and 2,700 the next quarter.

 

- Jamie

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is absurd.

 

I'm much more interested in hearing the grand juror's thoughts than the prosecutor - who only met cursively with the grand jury (most presentation was by underlings) - and certainly your reading as based on the DA's obviously misguided bloviation.

 

pubby

This is absurd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absurd.

Hey, it is absurd that the DA spoke for the grand jury given the amount of time he spent in front of it, what he put in front of it and depending on the secrecy of the proceedings to make it impossible to say - no, that is not what we saw or that is not how it was presented.

 

That is the reason the juror is suing to allow him/her to speak and clarify the size of the load the DA dumped on him/her and the rest of us.

 

pubby

 

PS: A football team might win a game without cheating but those who like to home-cook things cheat anyway because they can't countenance a loss. Government is like that in conflicts with its citizens (and this attitude is not limited to Ferguson Missouri)

 

PPS: I think we've lost something when honesty is not considered the best policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absurd.

 

 

Gag orders are riot provoking. You should be glad the grand jury law suit is going to court.

 

If you don't think a gag will insight a right, let someone gag you for a while. Unless you are a chicken you will be pissed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are those of you who think the grand jury based their decision not to prosecute Wilson on one witness alone. That's absurd as they heard testimony from many people.

 

What I find difficult to believe is with the capability to video anything with a cell phone, not one single witness who claimed they saw the event take place from beginning to end produced any video taken with their cell phone. We've seen a few videos of the events immediately following the shooting, but not one single video of the shooting itself. I find that very odd; especially with all the people who claimed they saw it happen.

 

Unless a person anticipated a shooting, why would they video it?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unless a person anticipated a shooting, why would they video it?

 

While I don't find it hard to believe, I do believe Its so common to see events recorded in this day and age. To the point that It wouldn't have surprised me if the robbery accomplice had recorded Wilson being attacked for YouTube notoriety.

 

- Jamie

Edited by Jamie Weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unless a person anticipated a shooting, why would they video it?

 

 

It wouldn't have made the least bit of difference, juleebella!

 

The man who got choked to death, in New York, was murdered on the street, with a video to show the killing, And, that didn't do anything but insight a bigger riot.

 

The "Blue Wall," is strong wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it is absurd that the DA spoke for the grand jury given the amount of time he spent in front of it, what he put in front of it and depending on the secrecy of the proceedings to make it impossible to say - no, that is not what we saw or that is not how it was presented.

 

That is the reason the juror is suing to allow him/her to speak and clarify the size of the load the DA dumped on him/her and the rest of us.

 

pubby

 

PS: A football team might win a game without cheating but those who like to home-cook things cheat anyway because they can't countenance a loss. Government is like that in conflicts with its citizens (and this attitude is not limited to Ferguson Missouri)

 

PPS: I think we've lost something when honesty is not considered the best policy.

You sound like you were there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are those of you who think the grand jury based their decision not to prosecute Wilson on one witness alone. That's absurd as they heard testimony from many people.

They didn't "hear" anything...it was a pile of paperwork from my understanding. That woman was mentioned in the press as the "key witness" for defending Wilson's side of the story.

 

Again, I'm not making a statement on guilt or innocence, just saying that one of the key witnesses for Wilson was a lying, mentally unstable person...and the GJ didn't know that. Could that have made a difference in their deliberation? We won't know until this juror gets the opportunity to speak.

 

mrnn

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A violent criminal attacked a police officer and was killed while doing so.

That is the fact.

Anyone who has a problem with that or doesn't believe that, is someone that has their own agenda that has nothing to do with facts and the truth.

If there was a video showing that the shooting happened exactly as the police officer said, these people would then say that the video was altered.

 

Bottom line a dangerous *criminal will never again commit a crime or hurt someone else.

I call that a win for the good people in society.

 

*Edited to use the word criminal instead of thug.

(thug was less letters and I was being lazy)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are those of you who think the grand jury based their decision not to prosecute Wilson on one witness alone. That's absurd as they heard testimony from many people.

 

What I find difficult to believe is with the capability to video anything with a cell phone, not one single witness who claimed they saw the event take place from beginning to end produced any video taken with their cell phone. We've seen a few videos of the events immediately following the shooting, but not one single video of the shooting itself. I find that very odd; especially with all the people who claimed they saw it happen.

Hmmm...very interesting. I'm sure this is racist. It is to left a thought not to be, we just have to find the right angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A violent criminal attacked a police officer and was killed while doing so.

That is the fact.

Anyone who has a problem with that or doesn't believe that, is someone that has their own agenda that has nothing to do with facts and the truth.

If there was a video showing that the shooting happened exactly as the police officer said, these people would then say that the video was altered.

 

Bottom line a dangerous thug will never again commit a crime or hurt someone else.

I call that a win for the good people in society.

I was with ya...until you said thug.

Dangerous criminal, man, felon, person...why do we keep having to use the word thug?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Capitalism at it's finest. Doesn't make the grand juror any less credible does it? The police officer quit the force and is making money doing interviews right?

 

Good grief, why can't people do some research before they spread false accusations? And, what do you have against capitalism?

 

http://snopes.com/politics/crime/wilsonabc.asp

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grand Jury decision was not and did not need to be unanimous. I'm sure one of the descenters is wanting to have his say to save his skin in case it ever gets out that he/she was on that Grand Jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it is absurd that the DA spoke for the grand jury given the amount of time he spent in front of it, what he put in front of it and depending on the secrecy of the proceedings to make it impossible to say - no, that is not what we saw or that is not how it was presented.

 

That is the reason the juror is suing to allow him/her to speak and clarify the size of the load the DA dumped on him/her and the rest of us.

 

pubby

 

PS: A football team might win a game without cheating but those who like to home-cook things cheat anyway because they can't countenance a loss. Government is like that in conflicts with its citizens (and this attitude is not limited to Ferguson Missouri)

 

PPS: I think we've lost something when honesty is not considered the best policy.

 

The juror probably wants to write a book. Do you have any proof that Darren Wilson was anything but a good policeman? Do you have any proof that the video of Micheal Brown committing a felony was phony? Honesty? When you defend someone because of the color of his skin, you are condemning someone else for the color of his skin. That's not honesty, that's racism to make yourself feel better and to confirm your feelings of being 'better' than others. You and too many others instantly condemned the police officer before you even knew anything.

 

Thanks to people like Sharpton and far-left liberals, there are a lot of black people afraid to stand with Wilson.

Edited by yathink?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was with ya...until you said thug.

Dangerous criminal, man, felon, person...why do we keep having to use the word thug?

I have edited the post to criminal instead of thug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A violent criminal attacked a police officer and was killed while doing so.

That is the fact.

Anyone who has a problem with that or doesn't believe that, is someone that has their own agenda that has nothing to do with facts and the truth.

If there was a video showing that the shooting happened exactly as the police officer said, these people would then say that the video was altered.

 

Bottom line a dangerous *criminal will never again commit a crime or hurt someone else.

I call that a win for the good people in society.

 

*Edited to use the word criminal instead of thug.

(thug was less letters and I was being lazy)

According to the media, ONE person vouched for WIlson's story. That person has proven to be an incredibly flawed witness who likely was not even at the scene. Does that make the dozens of other witnesses, many of whom changed their stories, any more credible? No, not at all.

 

What this all tells me is that the DA did an absolute hack job of giving the grand jury a clear and concise case to decide. So much so that one member of the jury, so far, has heard enough of the b.s. and wants to be able to speak about what a poor job the DA did. If that involves a book or a round on the TV News circuit, I don't care. I want to hear just how flawed this investigation was. If he's lying, you can rest assured knowing that other jurors will also speak up.

 

As far as calling Michael Brown a violent and dangerous criminal, he didn't kill anyone. He didn't flee from the police. What we KNOW, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that he robbed a gas station and assaulted the attendant. We know he was jaywalking. None of those crimes, as awful as they may be, are crimes that earn the death penalty. Hell, if he's a first time offender he may have just gotten off with probation. He had weed in his system? Can't be arrested for that unless he had some on him or was driving.

 

There were only a couple of videos from that day and they only caught the aftermath. The one that is often forgotten is the one showing a couple of white landscaping dudes up the street who were yelling "He had his trucking hands up!".

 

Here is a delightful summary of Witness 40, the woman who would have been laughed out of a real courtroom but was presented as credible by the wonderful DA.

 

mrnn

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound like you were there.

No, I just read a couple of stories about the man/woman and noted they are doing the right thing in going to court to remove the gag order placed on grand jurors. I think that the public story told by that DA was a spin job.

 

A violent criminal attacked a police officer and was killed while doing so.

That is the fact.

Anyone who has a problem with that or doesn't believe that, is someone that has their own agenda that has nothing to do with facts and the truth.

If there was a video showing that the shooting happened exactly as the police officer said, these people would then say that the video was altered.

 

Bottom line a dangerous *criminal will never again commit a crime or hurt someone else.

I call that a win for the good people in society.

 

*Edited to use the word criminal instead of thug.

(thug was less letters and I was being lazy)

The question I have and have not had answered and note that there is some eyewitness testimony that corroborates it is that the "attack" may have been a desperate attempt at self-defense; which would be justifiable.

 

I am not saying that Wilson is guilty ... but I am having a hard time figuring out why a guy who is booking it as fast as he can and has put 50 yards on the cop, suddenly turns and charges. The question is whether there were shots fired while he was running away and if they were, were they justified given the SCOTUS decision regarding fleeing criminals that prohibits shooting them except in specific circumstances.

 

I don't know that a grand jury - particularly one that was instructed at the beginning of the hearing that it was legal under Missouri law to shoot a fleeing criminal and only, in passing were told of the SCOTUS decision outlawing the practice.

 

I would also add that the firing of the gun in the patrol vehicle is also curious as one doesn't normally seek to grab a gun that is not in play already by the barrel (where you are likely to get your thumb or hand shot if it discharges.)

 

While I appreciate your broad-brush treatment of the facts ... the details are what bother me and the presentation of the DA avoided those details which I find problematic.

 

Why? Because the details, while circumstantial and not fully explored, seem to suggest that the story could be one of a young bully but otherwise petty criminal is attacked by a policeman who escalated and forced the deadly confrontation.

 

I personally believe the police ought to seek to avoid such existential confrontations by deescalating confrontations, not exacerbating them. Killing people is not their job; in fact, when bodies are stacked - police bodies, civilian bodies and even criminal bodies - the police have failed in their job. Sometimes it is unavoidable but as a general rule, a dead body is not just a failure, it is a very public failure.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the media, ONE person vouched for WIlson's story. That person has proven to be an incredibly flawed witness who likely was not even at the scene. Does that make the dozens of other witnesses, many of whom changed their stories, any more credible? No, not at all.

 

What this all tells me is that the DA did an absolute hack job of giving the grand jury a clear and concise case to decide. So much so that one member of the jury, so far, has heard enough of the b.s. and wants to be able to speak about what a poor job the DA did. If that involves a book or a round on the TV News circuit, I don't care. I want to hear just how flawed this investigation was. If he's lying, you can rest assured knowing that other jurors will also speak up.

 

As far as calling Michael Brown a violent and dangerous criminal, he didn't kill anyone. He didn't flee from the police. What we KNOW, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that he robbed a gas station and assaulted the attendant. We know he was jaywalking. None of those crimes, as awful as they may be, are crimes that earn the death penalty. Hell, if he's a first time offender he may have just gotten off with probation. He had weed in his system? Can't be arrested for that unless he had some on him or was driving.

 

There were only a couple of videos from that day and they only caught the aftermath. The one that is often forgotten is the one showing a couple of white landscaping dudes up the street who were yelling "He had his trucking hands up!".

 

Here is a delightful summary of Witness 40, the woman who would have been laughed out of a real courtroom but was presented as credible by the wonderful DA.

 

mrnn

You know I think you are a great guy (despite being a liberal), but, I stand by my statement.

No matter what the facts are, it will never change your mind.

But, I still love ya though...you know...in the manly, love your neighbor, can I borrow $20 kind of way...not in the weird, what are you wearing kind of way.

 

 

 

No, I just read a couple of stories about the man/woman and noted they are doing the right thing in going to court to remove the gag order placed on grand jurors. I think that the public story told by that DA was a spin job.

 

 

The question I have and have not had answered and note that there is some eyewitness testimony that corroborates it is that the "attack" may have been a desperate attempt at self-defense; which would be justifiable.

 

I am not saying that Wilson is guilty ... but I am having a hard time figuring out why a guy who is booking it as fast as he can and has put 50 yards on the cop, suddenly turns and charges. The question is whether there were shots fired while he was running away and if they were, were they justified given the SCOTUS decision regarding fleeing criminals that prohibits shooting them except in specific circumstances.

 

I don't know that a grand jury - particularly one that was instructed at the beginning of the hearing that it was legal under Missouri law to shoot a fleeing criminal and only, in passing were told of the SCOTUS decision outlawing the practice.

 

I would also add that the firing of the gun in the patrol vehicle is also curious as one doesn't normally seek to grab a gun that is not in play already by the barrel (where you are likely to get your thumb or hand shot if it discharges.)

 

While I appreciate your broad-brush treatment of the facts ... the details are what bother me and the presentation of the DA avoided those details which I find problematic.

 

Why? Because the details, while circumstantial and not fully explored, seem to suggest that the story could be one of a young bully but otherwise petty criminal is attacked by a policeman who escalated and forced the deadly confrontation.

 

I personally believe the police ought to seek to avoid such existential confrontations by deescalating confrontations, not exacerbating them. Killing people is not their job; in fact, when bodies are stacked - police bodies, civilian bodies and even criminal bodies - the police have failed in their job. Sometimes it is unavoidable but as a general rule, a dead body is not just a failure, it is a very public failure.

 

pubby

My reply to mrnn goes for you also....with one exception...what cha wearing.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I think you are a great guy (despite being a liberal), but, I stand by my statement.

No matter what the facts are, it will never change your mind.

But, I still love ya though...you know...in the manly, love your neighbor, can I borrow $20 kind of way...not in the weird, what are you wearing kind of way.

 

 

 

My reply to mrnn goes for you also....with one exception...what cha wearing.

:)

:hi:

I know that this stuff is near and dear to you....you're a huge proponent of law enforcement and, some of the other topics we disagree on, I know you hold personal experience above theory. That's cool and I respect that about you. Doesn't mean we can't exchange some posts about the subjects back and forth....with hopes that one day you'll see the light :good:

 

BTW, I know you said you don't care, but I've got on an aqua speedo, flip-flops, and a neon yellow halter top on right now. Getting ready to head up to the Hiram Walmart.

 

mrnn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it is absurd that the DA spoke for the grand jury given the amount of time he spent in front of it, what he put in front of it and depending on the secrecy of the proceedings to make it impossible to say - no, that is not what we saw or that is not how it was presented.

 

That is the reason the juror is suing to allow him/her to speak and clarify the size of the load the DA dumped on him/her and the rest of us.

 

pubby

 

PS: A football team might win a game without cheating but those who like to home-cook things cheat anyway because they can't countenance a loss. Government is like that in conflicts with its citizens (and this attitude is not limited to Ferguson Missouri)

 

PPS: I think we've lost something when honesty is not considered the best policy.

 

You probably just got me arrested or at least held in contempt, when I regurgitate that in a certain judge's courtroom, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The juror probably wants to write a book. Do you have any proof that Darren Wilson was anything but a good policeman? Do you have any proof that the video of Micheal Brown committing a felony was phony? Honesty? When you defend someone because of the color of his skin, you are condemning someone else for the color of his skin. That's not honesty, that's racism to make yourself feel better and to confirm your feelings of being 'better' than others. You and too many others instantly condemned the police officer before you even knew anything.

 

Thanks to people like Sharpton and far-left liberals, there are a lot of black people afraid to stand with Wilson.

 

Classic strawman's argument. The ridicule that Sharpton endures is the same ridicule that MLK had to endure. Now Sharpton is no MLK, to borrow from Lloyd Bentsen, but history has been kind to some these last 40 years and not so kind to others. If we listen when we speak, we may find which side of history we will stand 40 years from now.

post-47214-0-08821800-1420589768_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the media, ONE person vouched for WIlson's story. That person has proven to be an incredibly flawed witness who likely was not even at the scene. Does that make the dozens of other witnesses, many of whom changed their stories, any more credible? No, not at all.

 

What this all tells me is that the DA did an absolute hack job of giving the grand jury a clear and concise case to decide. So much so that one member of the jury, so far, has heard enough of the b.s. and wants to be able to speak about what a poor job the DA did. If that involves a book or a round on the TV News circuit, I don't care. I want to hear just how flawed this investigation was. If he's lying, you can rest assured knowing that other jurors will also speak up.

 

As far as calling Michael Brown a violent and dangerous criminal, he didn't kill anyone. He didn't flee from the police. What we KNOW, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that he robbed a gas station and assaulted the attendant. We know he was jaywalking. None of those crimes, as awful as they may be, are crimes that earn the death penalty. He had weed in his system? Can't be arrested for that unless he had some on him or was driving.

 

There were only a couple of videos from that day and they only caught the aftermath. The one that is often forgotten is the one showing a couple of white landscaping dudes up the street who were yelling "He had his trucking hands up!". Here is a delightful summary of Witness 40, the woman who would have been laughed out of a real courtroom but was presented as credible by the wonderful DA.

 

mrnn

No, Brown hadn't killed anyone YET, but according to the forensic evidence on the wound on his right hand, his blood INSIDE officer Wilson's vehicle as well as on Wilson's uniform pants, he sure tried his best to make Wilson his first.

 

 

He wasn't killed for any of those reasons you mentioned. He chose to attack officer Wilson and in the process tried to get his weapon and again, this is supported by forensic evidence

 

"Hell, if he's a first time offender he may have just gotten off with probation." (Too bad that didn't occur to Michael Brown)

 

Have you read the landscapers testimony? I believe he was witness #36. Have you read where he claimed all the shots were to Michael Brown's chest and armpit and he saw the bullets exiting the back of his shirt (from 40-60 yards away) None of the 3 autopsies supported his claim.

 

 

Speaking of laughing at Witness 40, aside from the landscaper, have read the interviews with witnesses 33, 35, 37, and 41? They made claims from Brown being on his knees beside the police car when Wilson shot him, to there being FOUR officers in TWO police cars, that Michael Brown punched the officer in the passenger seat of Wilson's vehicle-according to this "witness" he punched him because Wilson ran over his foot-to Brown, while on his knees with his arms in the air begging Wilson not to kill him and Wilson walking up anyway and shooting him point blank.

Then of course there is the testimony from Crenshaw, Mitchell and Dorian Johnson.

 

 

Edited by Armymom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...