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.
Question: did any witnesses refuse to testify?
Answer: some disappeared yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Are you sure about that? Are sure that was the only thing the jury considered?
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:
For one thing, because it isn't. The SCOTUS case was Tennesse v. Garner:
Why couldn't she say that despite the law being on the law books it is unconstitutional to shoot at a fleeing suspect?
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.
(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.
Highly relevant to the SCOTUS ruling.
What do mean "cleared up?" The numbers show the level of inconsistency! Everything is all over the place in those numbers.
And the numbers I'm quoting you are numbers after inconsistencies are cleared up.
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..
1) The jury was instructed to ignore the Missouri statute.
The entire law. Her statement is quite clear. The law is unconstitutional as written.
Ignore what totally? The entire law or the part that's unconstitutional?
What does the physical evidence say? Which is more reliable?
but according to 16 out of the 21 that saw the fatal shots... he had his hands up.