Ferguson Corruption PROOF

a reply to: Phage

yes just as easily as the ones that said he was are lying.

contridicting evidence and witness statments prove the need for a true bill in this case and prove that corruption can be found in furguson thru ignorrance or something more sinister.

that is what a courtroom is for and not a grand jury of this type to dismiss either version. that would be justice my friend and is what everyone was shouting.

a reply to: deadeyedick

yes just as easily as the ones that said he was are lying.

So they all are lying. Great. Now what?

contridicting evidence and witness statments prove the need for a true bill

Does that mean that every case that has contradictory witness statements should go to trial? That would pretty much mean that every criminal case would go to trial.

prove that corruption can be found in furguson thru ignorrance

If the case had gone to trial the charges would not have been corruption. They would have involved something having to do with unlawful use of force or murder.

that is what a courtroom is for and not a grand jury of this type to dismiss either version.

A grand jury is to determine if a crime may have been committed. This grand jury decided that there was not.

a reply to: deadeyedick

One man has a knife and is 20 ft in front of a man with a gun. The one with the knife starts to come at the other quickly.

Who wins? Gun or knife?

Knife does....because in 3-4 secs he will reach the gun holder before he can draw and fire.

Knives wielding threat will travel 20ft quicker every time.

Learned that in 3 (three) sep. Firearms training classes

So...your proof...isn't.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Interesting...
I dare you to do something stupid and try running from the cops while reaching for something out of their view.
Lets see how long you last.

Can you cite the evidence that Brown's blood trail began exactly where he turned around for me? What I remember reading (though it's been a few days) was that Wilson "estimated" where Brown turned around "approximately."

And then can you explain how any of this is evidence of corruption? And on who's part? Because at this point you're now claiming that multiple witnesses were "threatened with death" if they didn't change their story and that the grand jury was "corrupt" without offering any real evidence to support either statement. So far all you've demonstrated is that you don't agree with the grand jury's opinion and you're citing estimates and approximations as proof that there's corruption.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I've already addressed you making this comment once before. You seem to believe that one witness with a contradictory statement is grounds to indict. It is not. I will use the same example I used before:

A man is before a grand jury for shooting somebody in cold blood instead of self defense. Physical evidence doesn't suppport the cold blood claim. 11 witnesses don't support the cold blood claim. One witness supports the cold blood claim. That is NOT probable cause and does NOT mean the grand jury should indict. In any grand jury hearing. Period.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

All of your questions have been answered repeatedly. In multiple threads on here.

a reply to: deadeyedick

How could the witnesses not be lying about Brown being shot in the back when the autopsy showed he wasn't? Or was the ME in on it too?

a reply to: deadeyedick

It is not really proof of anything, though. However, we might have had a more accurate picture of times and distances had a real investigation been done of the crime scene in the first place:

Link

Link

The whole "investigation" was a farce, on top of the grand jury. I have actually seen more intensive investigation into the death's of a local 4H's prized goats than I have of Micheal Brown's shooting.

Either St Louis County has the most lazy, incompetent law enforcement and public servants in the country, or the investigation was deliberately shallow and half-assed because they didn't want a deeper examination.

Oh by the way, I found something regarding the audio in the very last grand jury transcript (p89-90), where a juror asks the prosecutor about it.

GRAND JUROR: Okay, question. We heard the audiotape that had the last ten shots on it, can you tell us exactly what that timeframe was from the first shot to the tenth shot it was six or there? We tried to approximate it.

MS. ALIZADEH: I do have the report. I can give it to you. He did not time, there is nothing about the duration of the shots. The report just indicates that there were ten, what appeared to be ten apparent gunshots and a male voice speaking. It was just an analyst of the audio and it doesn't really say, it says nothing about duration of the shots. So I'd be happy to get that report for you.

GRAND JUROR: There wasn't a craft line that showed time of duration?

MS. ALIZADEH: No, that wasn't done.

It would seem that they did not present this to the grand jury:

Rather, they presented a report and the actual audio itself.

Ok, here is something else that makes me suspicious. So in the earlier part of the whole investigation, it was claimed that when Wilson first encountered Brown and his buddy, that he was unaware of the robbery Brown had just committed, and had approached brown like any other random citizen walking in the street. Later, however, we learn that Wilson was aware of the robbery, and even suspected Brown was the suspect he was looking for. If he knew, that would really make certain parts of his testimony difficult to believe, because his reactions, behavior, and responses would not make any sense.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: deadeyedick

One man has a knife and is 20 ft in front of a man with a gun. The one with the knife starts to come at the other quickly.

Who wins? Gun or knife?

Knife does....because in 3-4 secs he will reach the gun holder before he can draw and fire.

Knives wielding threat will travel 20ft quicker every time.

Learned that in 3 (three) sep. Firearms training classes

So...your proof...isn't.

the guy i bought my pistol from told me that exact same thing like 2 days ago.
i couldnt believe it...

a reply to: Grovit

To be fair, the average running speed of a human is roughly 22 feet per second, so a gap of 20 feet would be covered in that time.
The average response time to visual stimulus is nearly 0.2 seconds.
So, he'd be upon you with you needing to respond in about 0.8 seconds.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I believe this discrepancy arose due to a lack of communication.

Wilson testified that he had no contact with the Ferguson Police Department regarding the incident after leaving the hospital, or something like that. He told St. Louis investigators the next day that he had to stop them after noticing Brown had cigarillos in his hands, suspecting they might be the two from the theft, per this report:
Interview PO Darren Wilson

Therefore, the chief making the statement was probably just unsure.

a reply to: Greven

22 feet in a second seems like a long distance to cover....
im not saying youre wrong. i know youre correct...

when i heard it though, i had to think about it to see if i thought it added up

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

He got a radio call as he was leaving the first time.

Then he returned right away.

(I think)

Whenever I see a thread with the words "PROOF" with huge capital letters in the title, I'm always very suspect.

And after reading this thread I see it is for a reason. I'll continue my trend.

Also, your BASE source is questionable. The audio recording has still to this day never been verified. A specific company that does ballistic audio testing with precise instruments in the area and tried to triangulate the position to verify, they couldn't.

a reply to: Greven

It would seem that they did not present this to the grand jury:

Nice bunch of selective redaction there. Why did you omit this part of the Grand Jurors query?

We tried to approximate it, it was six or seven seconds, but do you know exactly?

Seems they had a pretty good handle on things. That's something I noticed, the jurors asked astute questions of the witnesses.

You also failed to mention that the report being discussed was the FBI report, not the one posted in the Washington Times. You seem to be implying that the prosecutor was lying. Do you know if the FBI report had a timeplot or did you just want to let the insinuation lie there?

a reply to: Grovit

My firearm instructor had me at 20ft wth a knive and I with an unloaded handgun....and he raised his arms and yelled "Now!"

He stomped at me and reached me in 4 steps as I had just drawn my weapon from its holster, and leveled it at him...

He knocked me down. He instilled that the perpetrator can get to you first in a single in n out single breath.

His point was to make clear....the gun is not the positively effective defensive weapon in all cases.