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.

 

National Bar Association Lawyers Release Statement Indicating Ferguson Prosecutor Corruption

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Since he doesn't want to, I will.

www.c-span.org.../ferguson-missouri-grand-jury-decision-announcement

You can search the transcript for "witness" and then all the way down at the bottom during the Q&A you'll see the question and answer I cited.




posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
No missing persons then, just people who refused to testify.
Turning this:

Question: did any witnesses refuse to testify?
Answer: some disappeared yes.

into "missing persons" is about the equivalent of turning a fear of being knocked unconscious into "almost unconscious" so it's not surprising that's what he was talking about.

No confimation bias here. Nope.
Deadeyedick, do me a favor and don't ever be on a jury. For anyone.


edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
Thanks.



Here is what Muccloch said to the grand jury at the opening.

If they made statements, you will not only get the statements they made, whether they are to police, FBI, or television or on the internet or anything else. If we've got those statements, you will have those statements. You will also have the witness who will come in and testify as to that.

Some certainly might be they are just statements that are floating around on the internet and nobody knows who is making that statement, but everybody is doing that and the FBI is doing what they can to locate any of those or the source of them.


Sounds about right. Some agreed to testify. Some did not. Some statements came off TV. Some came from the internet. No missing persons, sources that were not traceable.
edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Actually he said another punch "could" knock him out. Or "could" be fatal. At no point did he indicate he was either on the edge of being knocked out, or killed. Simply that he felt it was a possibility of he continued to get hit.

You're cherry picking words, distorting them (either intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know) and then forcing them to conform to an idea you came up with.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

The point is that he was injured and ignored procedure by forcing another battle.

now look at the wording another punch indicates that he had been punched by brown and that if he recieved another one givin the damage the first made then it could have been enough for lights out. he indicates that damage was done by a punch or punches.

this relates to the op because it seems that the officer was not questioned about that or why he did not wait for back up or why at the point he began chase he did not get out his tazer. His choice to keep the gun and go after the suspect shows that he really did not think the two had weapons but that brown needed to die. If he believed they were armed as he stated then the second suspect would have to be accounted for and detained before going after brown because he was closer than brown. If he truely believed them to be armed then his actions did not show it. The poor decision making he done lead one to believe that wilson was either injured effecting his thinking or was looking to gun down the suspect. remember back up was only two minutes away once the first shots were fired and for the moment the situation was diffused and the statment that he had to stop brown from hurting someone is neglagent at best because there were possibly two armed suspects.

Why did wilson ignore the other one if he felt they were a danger to the public enough to kill him? The call on the radio was for two suspects not one.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Shamrock6

No missing persons then, just people who refused to testify.

Turning this:


Question: did any witnesses refuse to testify?

Answer: some disappeared yes.


into "missing persons" is about the equivalent of turning a fear of being knocked unconscious into "almost unconscious" so it's not surprising that's what he was talking about.



No confimation bias here. Nope.

Deadeyedick, do me a favor and don't ever be on a jury. For anyone.



there you go only posting enough to satisfy your argument. I believe they went further into detail about one witness in particular that contridicted the last shots but they later could not locate the witness. the term disappearing witness is the same as missing person if the police are after you but one way makes it sound as if they are avoiding police and the other way sounds like they were not able to be found. that does not change the fact that police were unable to locate this person and if they were doing their job correctly then we can assume that it is now a missing person however givin the police record in that town chances are that the person asking the question was the missing person and they would not care.

If someone you loved was harmed or injured by a bullet in a similar situation then your prayers would likely be asking for someone like me to sit in judgment for you.
edit on 29-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

No.

He pursued a subject that had just assaulted him. Was it the wisest decision? Perhaps not. He didn't force another confrontation, he engaged in pursuit. Brown forced the second confrontation by turning and advancing on Wilson and ignoring verbal commands.

No, it doesn't mean he felt given the "damage" of the first strikes that he would be knocked out. It is entirely, totally, absolutely possible to incapacitate somebody with one strike.

He was absolutely questioned on why he went for his sidearm instead of deploying any of the other tools at his disposal. A taser was not one of those tools. Why didn't he have a taser? He wasn't required to have one. The debate can go on for days as to whether he should have had a taser, but the bottom line was he didn't, and he wasn't required to.

I don't recall a single instance of Wilson stating he thought either subject was or wasn't armed. He didn't know. The closest he came to stating he thought Brown was armed is when he described Brown reaching toward his waist, as if to reach for a weapon.

Again, this time in regard to ignoring one subject to pursue the other, we're back to "was it a poor choice?" Possibly. Be that as it may, he pursued the subject who assaulted him.

He had no idea how far away backup was. Using the fact that backup was 30 seconds away, or 2 minutes, or 10 minutes, is irrelevant. Except in after the fact arguments such as this, anyway.

Again, he pursued the one who assaulted him. And ignored the one who was doing nothing beyond standing there. Who's the greater danger to the community: a guy who may be involved in stealing cigarillos, or a guy who definitely just assaulted a cop?



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Again, no. If a person posts "I saw the shooting" on Twitter and then refuses all attempts to contact them further, they have effectively disappeared from the investigation. The police can't treat every person who doesn't pick up the phone as a missing person.

And no, he went on to say they got a written statement from one person claiming to be a witness, and then weren't able to get in touch with that person after that point.
edit on 29-11-2014 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm not a fan of MSNBC but Lawrence O'Donnell makes a good point, I think, about the very thing we were discussing. I'm linking an article that transcribes much of the video but the video is also at the bottom. I just happen to find it easier to read this guy rather than listen to him...

My major contention is and will probably remain so, is that this law that was handed to the jury in the beginning is the very thing they judged the whole trial by, every witness, every piece of evidence was measured against:


justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.


Only to be told right before going into deliberations, in a very unclear manner, that part of that law was ruled unconstitutional.


When one juror asked if “federal court overrides Missouri statutes,” O’Donnell says that she ignored a simple, clear, one-word answer, “yes.”

“That is why we no longer have segregated schools in this country. The Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional and illegal to have segregated schools,” he said. “And that is the only reason states like Mississippi and Alabama and Arkansas and, yes, Missouri, no longer have segregated schools.”


(O'Donells words bolded, Alizadeh's not bolded)

Why couldn't she say that despite the law being on the law books it is unconstitutional to shoot at a fleeing suspect? Instead she remained ambiguous and got even more long winded then when the questions kept coming she dismissed them with a "we don't want to get into a law class here".

I find that ludicrous.

ETA: http: //www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/29/darren-wilsons-grand-jurors-were-told-to-base-decision-on-law-ruled-unconstitutional-in-1985-video/
ed it on 11/29/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

My major contention is and will probably remain so, is that this law that was handed to the jury in the beginning is the very thing they judged the whole trial by, every witness, every piece of evidence was measured against:
Are you sure about that? Are sure that was the only thing the jury considered?



Why couldn't she say that despite the law being on the law books it is unconstitutional to shoot at a fleeing suspect?
For one thing, because it isn't. The SCOTUS case was Tennesse v. Garner:

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

BTW, Brown was not fleeing when the fatal shots were fired.

edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

From your link


(a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.

(b) The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common-law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. Changes in the legal and technological context mean that that rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied. Whereas felonies were formerly capital crimes, few are now, or can be, and many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Also, the common-law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. And, in light of the varied rules adopted in the States indicating a long-term movement away from the common-law rule, particularly in the police departments themselves, that rule is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. There is no indication that holding a police practice such as that authorized by the statute unreasonable will severely hamper effective law enforcement. Pp. 12-20.

(c) While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.


He was fleeing at some point and numerous witnesses testified that Wilson was shooting as Brown was fleeing.

20 witnesses were asked if Wilson fired at Brown as he was fleeing 15 said yes.
edit on 11/29/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74



He was fleeing at some point and numerous witnesses testified that Wilson was shooting as Brown was fleeing.

And numerous others did not. And the physical evidence indicates that he did not.

But it doesn't matter because the fatal shots occurred when Brown was not fleeing, when Wilson perceived a threat to himself. Brown had assaulted Wilson. Brown had tried to take Wilson's weapon. Brown stopped, turned, and advanced toward Wilson.


edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

20 witnesses were asked if Wilson fired at Brown as he was fleeing 15 said yes.

And 21 were asked if Brown had his hands up... 16 said yes, 3 didn't answer and 2 said no.
edit on 11/29/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
Yes, there are many inconsistencies and contradictions in the witnesses statements. As well as contradictions to the physical evidence. That's one of the problems with eyewitness reports.

But it doesn't matter relevant to the SCOTUS decision because...see above.


edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Highly relevant to the SCOTUS ruling.

And the numbers I'm quoting you are numbers after inconsistencies are cleared up.

pbs



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Corruption...

Dear god, are we just now as a majority of a society admitting our government is corrupt?

I stopped reading after I started reading the typical people as always fighting over opinions...

I think we can all agree that How this case was handled from top to bottom could have and should have been better, and it reeks with corruption as well..

Life is not fair.. One of the First lessons I learned in this crap shoot of a world we have made...

I got an idea lets stop fighting and arguing with one another and try to focus on how to get along with people that have different opinions..

Maybe the Persians should have defeated the Greeks.. Free thinking does not work for all, as the internet has taught me..

Kinda hard for me to learn anything when I (A) cannot ignore people a this is a big gripe skeptic, I truly hope that can be something improved.. Hard for me to learn anything more about this from other intellects when I have to read idiotic drivel... Or just skip pages..




edit on b422014-11-29T23:42:55-06:00America/Chicago113076 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Highly relevant to the SCOTUS ruling.

No.
1) The jury was instructed to ignore the Missouri statute.
2) The fatal shots were fired when Brown was not fleeing.


And the numbers I'm quoting you are numbers after inconsistencies are cleared up.
What do mean "cleared up?" The numbers show the level of inconsistency! Everything is all over the place in those numbers.




edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Bicent76




I think we can all agree that How this case was handled from top to bottom could have and should have been better, and it reeks with corruption as well..

Apparently you are wrong that we all agree and the second, unrelated, part of your statement is your opinion.


edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

/facepalm


1) The jury was instructed to ignore the Missouri statute.


Alizadeh says two months after handing them the law that part of it is unconstitutional, "It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.”

Ignore what totally? The entire law or the part that's unconstitutional? She never clarifies and when asked goes into spiels about cases that have nothing to do with the one the jury is about to deliberate on and then dismisses further questions with... "we don't want to get into a law class".

Yes Brown was facing Wilson when the fatal shots were fired, but according to 16 out of the 21 that saw the fatal shots... he had his hands up.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Ignore what totally? The entire law or the part that's unconstitutional?
The entire law. Her statement is quite clear. The law is unconstitutional as written.



but according to 16 out of the 21 that saw the fatal shots... he had his hands up.
What does the physical evidence say? Which is more reliable?


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

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



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join