It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

page: 108
138
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Nope nope nope. Stick to the statement. You said witnesses were threatened. I said prove it. You said you can't. At no point did I bring in to question anything else you've said prior this. I'm speaking directly to your comment. Don't try and go back 20 pages of posts to bring up something else. Stick to the issue. Don't start talking about how you didn't check the mail yesterday.
edit on 30-11-2014 by Shamrock6 because: Typos




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Shamrock6



Now what kind of corruption would it be if it could be proven by me?



however i dare you to jump on my last post to phage and fully understand my comments there and if you do understand then then you will have one small piece that starts to paint the picture off corruption in the gj. at the lesst look at it and show me where you think the figures are wrong.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick



if brown was doing anything other than walking toward wilson then the distance he could have covered would be greater than 36'
If you assume he was moving at a steady speed the entire time.

I just did a little experiment. Yes, at good walking speed it took me about 6 seconds to walk 30 feet. But if I take one or two slow steps, I have to get moving at a pretty good clip to make that time. Did Wilson say that Brown started running as soon as he turned? It's not really clear.


He turns, and when he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he's coming back towards me. His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running. When he does that his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me.


Brown may not have been at a full run. But he could easily have been moving rapidly toward Wilson. Moving toward someone does not usually indicate surrender. Wilson was justified in fearing bodily harm.

I just reread the post I originally replied to and this stood out:

A prosecutor who wanted to actually indict him would have bothered to mention this.
It is not a prosecutors job to indict. It is a prosecutors job (before trial) to present evidence to a judge or jury to decide if a crime has been committed.

edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I'm not talking about corruption in the grand jury. I'm talking about your accusation that witnesses were threatened with death if they didn't change their stories.

Either way, Phage already answered



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Based on Wilson's testimony he started firing after Brown had been approaching him and he gave orders for him to get on the ground. Based on Wilson's testimony there is no way to determine how far Brown had moved when Wilson opened fire so there is no way that the audio could be used to determine the rate of Brown's advance when Wilson started firing.

Your debunking sounds lovely when you don't have the context of the distance traveled.

Since it seems you are just now joining us, the context was on previous pages. See this image, provided from the documentation and edited by me slightly to guesstimate where Wilson might have been.where we know roughly how far away Brown moved.


Since we know the distance, and we know the time, and we have Officer Wilson's testimony as to how he moved - towards him without halting - then we can indeed say that Brown had a maximum speed of below average walking speed.

edit:
His testimony contradicts itself when introducing the crime scene measured distances and the audio.
1) Wilson estimated Brown stopped and turned near the light pole, which is roughly equal to the last blood stains in the street.
2) Wilson said he only fired (after the two shots near/at the SUV) at Brown after Brown started moving towards him.
3) The distance between that position and Brown's feet is roughly 25 feet.
4) The duration of the audio, from first to last shot, is 6.57 seconds. It did not capture the first 2 shots, so far as we know, but rather the last 10 of the 12. The cadence also matches well with Wilson's testimony of fire shots - pause - fire - pause - fire shots - stop.
5) Wilson testified that Brown dropped instantly to the ground after the last shot, with his feet kicking up in the air after he hit the ground.
edit on 16Sun, 30 Nov 2014 16:34:38 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

if he was moving faster than walking then it shows that he would have traveled further but the distance he traveled at a fast threatening pace has been determind and accepted by the gj to be 25'

add the six seconds of shots to the time it takes to say get on the ground a lest twice and see how far you get.

it will be a far greater distance than brown traveled almost double

it is impossible for everything wilsn said to be true



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

See my post above.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Shamrock6





Now what kind of corruption would it be if it could be proven by me?





however i dare you to jump on my last post to phage and fully understand my comments there and if you do understand then then you will have one small piece that starts to paint the picture off corruption in the gj. at the lesst look at it and show me where you think the figures are wrong.
sham rock 6

this is the post you refer too unedited

you are not making sense

i gave you evidense even though i stated the question" what kind of corruption would it be if it could be proven by me"

the answer you assumed is that i could not prove corruption but the true answer is that it is weak corruption because it is proven that lies have been found in testimonies and the conclusion can now be reached that witnesses were forced to lie and change their statments.
edit on 30-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

if he was moving faster than walking then it shows that he would have
Yes. If he were moving faster than walking the whole time.



it is impossible for everything wilsn said to be true

Does that mean he was lying? Were the witnesses that swore that Brown was shot in the back lying?

As I said, Brown probably was not at a full run though Wilson remembered it that way. Brown need not have been at a full run to pose a threat.

edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If Wilson started firing significantly after Brown started moving, then Brown would have moved even slower than the estimated 3.8 feet per second. That's the instantaneous reaction-calculated maximum speed from the 10 shots on Brown who is moving towards Wilson, assuming Wilson fired only at Brown when Brown was moving towards him.

Let me remind you again:
Wilson says he fired only at Brown (after the SUV) when Brown was moving towards Wilson.
Wilson fired on Brown over a 6.57s span, per audio recording.
Normal human running speed is about 22 feet per second (~144 feet over 6.57s).
Normal human jogging speed is a relatively narrow window between roughly 7.5 and 9 feet per second (49-59 feet over 6.57s).
Normal pedestrian walking speed for older people is between roughly 4.1 and 4.3 feet per second (27-28 feet over 6.57s)
Brown traveled approximately 25 feet, per crime scene measurements.

Nothing adds up about that.
edit on 17Sun, 30 Nov 2014 17:39:43 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

It makes perfect sense. You state witnesses were threatened with death. I asked you to prove it. You said something about "what kind of corruption would it be if I can prove it." Or words to the effect. You're now making two different claims. One: witnesses were threatened. Two: the grand jury is corrupt. I told you to stick to your claim that witnesses were threatened instead of trying to bring up something else entirely.

The only thing I'm confused about is what "evidence" you gave that supports a) witnesses were threatened with death or b) that the grand jury is corrupt.
edit on 30-11-2014 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: nenothtu

No kidding? And what does a grand jury do? Determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person committed a crime.

"The investigatory functions of the grand jury include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence and hearing the sworn testimony of witnesses that appear before it. The grand jury's accusatory function is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offense within the venue of the district court."

Thanks


I stand corrected.

If "Probable Cause" is the threshold of certainty that had to be met, then they should have indicted. You've convinced me.

I blame the misunderstanding on my level of education - I was taught that a Grand Jury had to consider an actual Preponderance of Evidence, not mere Probable Cause, and that without that preponderance of Evidence, there could be no Probable Cause, since Probable Cause is only a level of certainty in the mind of the person doing the consideration.

Sorry 'bout that.




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick

So now we have the distance and at least 9 seconds passed as brown was covering it if wilsons statments are true.
I have no idea where you got that 9 seconds from but we have no way of determining from Wilson's testimony how far away Brown was when Wilson first opened fire. There is no way to use the audio to determine how fast Brown was advancing.



Not to mention this odd notion I have that a man may not be strolling along like a leisurely walk in the park while he's being perforated. I know that sort of thing would make ME perhaps pause here and there in my stroll. Just the physics of being smacked with a few foot pounds of energy sudden-like has even been know to be cause for pause, and in a few rare individuals may have even made them jerk or spin a bit, maybe falter in a step or two.

Trying to time such events as if one is holding a stop watch at a Sunday foot race seems a bit of a stretch to me maybe even more of a stretch if all you have to go on is the sound, and you're trying to time the crossing of the finish line by the sound of the starter's pistol alone, with your eyes closed.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

we have by wilsons statments brown in motion the whole time until the kill shot. we have six+ seconds of shots then we have the time it takes to say "get on the ground" at least two times. that would take about at least 3 seconds to be said and even one or two more seconds to be processed by brown. an estimation of at least 9 seconds of interaction from wilsons statments can be extrapulated here. we can then compare that to the blood trail from brown and then add the claim from wilson that brown was charging and never stopped.



You're making the assumption that a blood trail starts to flow the instant a gun is fired. That's not always the case. There are a lot of variables that come into play between the BOOM! and the first drop of blood hitting the ground.




now an average person would cover at the least 30' walking in that time so how did brown if in motion the whole time and traveling in a threatening manner that would likely be a charge meaning not walking how would he only cover 25'

this gives much merit to the witnesses that said brown was on his knees with his hands up



Not unless he was throwing blood for 25" from his wounds as he sat stationary. That distance indicates motion.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof in civil cases. Example: if you were to sue me saying I owe you money, it's up to you to prove that I do, not up to me to prove I don't. You would do so using testimony and whatever evidence you have to show that I more likely than not do actually owe you money.

It is a fairly low threshold for evidence. Lower than anything required for a criminal case, anyway.
edit on 30-11-2014 by Shamrock6 because: Reasons



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Agreed. This is all based off an estimation of a turning point, with a good bit of "if" action thrown in. IF Wilson was accurate about where Brown stopped and turned. What IF he was 5 feet off? 10?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: nenothtu

Preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof in civil cases. Example: if you were to sue me saying I owe you money, it's up to you to prove that I do, not up to me to prove I don't. You would do so using testimony and whatever evidence you have to show that I more likely than not do actually owe you money.

It is a fairly low threshold for evidence. Lower than anything required for a criminal case, anyway.


I'll ask you to cut me some slack and correct where necessary - while it's true that what I learned of it I DID learn in the very location you list as your current one, that was a bit over 30 years ago, and things change.

Back then, in the Commonwealth, the burdens of proof to be met varied between Civil and Criminal cases, and even then, with the stage the case was at.

For example, while the lower level of certainty involved in a "preponderance of evidence" could decide a civil case, a higher level of "reasonable doubt" was necessary to decide a criminal case - i.e. in the courtroom. Of course in the matter of civil cases, there was no arrest to worry over, nor a Grand Jury - the litigants just file and hit it. In criminal cases, "probable cause" was necessary for arrest, "preponderance of evidence" for indictment, and "beyond reasonable doubt" for conviction, raising the bar at each stage of the process.

As I said, that was a little over 30 years ago, though, and I've only recently returned - maybe to an entirely different Commonwealth... or maybe it's just a faulty mind coming back, and the state never changed at all. I dunno which.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Exactly. In situations where lead files, the trackways are not always as defined as they are in, for instance, a carnival duck-shooting gallery with proper stop bars and the like to tell the targets when to swap directions, nor is the pace always as even as one may find there. People tend to zig, and to zag, duck and bob, and all manner of contortions that mechanical ducks don't go through, all in the effort to not be hit by the aforementioned flying lead.

It's sort of a reach, IMO, to try to apply the rigors of lab testing with it's repeatable and verifiable pre-defined pathway and steady, even speeds to a situation where someone may be trying to test their ability to get you before you get THEM. Such events don't tend to produce an even, measured, level and steady pace from point A to point B. There is often a lot of dancing involved.

5 feet, or 10 feet, can make ALL the difference - and they're a little harder to be certain of from the ground, at an uncertain angle of view, while you are trying to stop someone who is at the same time trying to stop you from stopping them. By "angle of view" I refer to the phenomena where 10 feet may look like 5 feet if viewed at a 45 degree angle through adrenaline-induced tunnel vision. You can't always say precisely where a moving target is in relation to everything else when adrenaline kicks in - you only REALLY need to know, in that instant, which direction your muzzle needs to be pointed.



edit on 2014/11/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

No worries at all, I was just trying to explain where the confusion may have come from. The Commonwealth is a strange beast on its best days. I would venture to say it's the source of confusion and not anything on your end.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I'm not sure I understand the significance of the "25 feet" thing.

Going back and looking at this diagram provided previously in the thread, and keeping in mind that the argument seems to hinge on blood stains, where they start and where they end with a body in the street, I'm just not getting where they are getting "25 feet" from.

There are "red stains" specified at the vehicle, and "red stains" specified about 170 or 180 feet away, and no "red stains" specified in between. It seems a pretty flimsy basis to base an argument on, as if people are supposed to believe that Brown bled at the vehicle, decided not to bleed for a while, then said "ah hell - I'm gonna start bleeding right here and then fall down dead over there, just for grins and giggle to confuse investigations at ATS".

Now, I've been subject to bleeding a time or two myself, but cannot recall any instances where I could turn it on and off like there was a tap installed. If Brown didn't leak any between the patrol vehicle and the end of the street, what is there to show that where he bled again was as far as he got?

What I'm getting at is - I've had to track wounded animals a time or two, and often never found the first blood spoor before traveling 30 to 50 feet or more, and then it was hit or miss thereafter, depending on how the bleeding party moved. Maybe two spots here, one spot there, maybe no more for another 50 feet or more.

Blood spoor are a poor basis for a timeline. Organisms don't always bleed on cue.



edit on 2014/11/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
138
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join