KU Journalism Major Shreds “Case” Against Mike Brown

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I don't care what Wilson testified to. He changed his story at least 3 times before that. Wilson shouldn't be considered to be telling the truth just because he says he is.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yes, that was Browns blood INSIDE the car

You can tell me that all day. I don't believe you any more than I believe the Ferguson PD.

Your self-induced skepticism does not negate facts, whether you hope it does or not.

Evidence is only considered evidence once its been entered in to the court record by attorneys for both sides in a trial.

No, evidence is evidence, regardless if it ever is accepted as evidence in a trial. Only certain types of evidence are admissable in court, but everything collected in connection with an investigation is evidence--they don't call it an "evidence locker" or "evidence room" just for the fun of it.

A grand jury isn't supposed to decide forensics, experts testifying in open court for the prosecution and the defense are.

*sigh* A grand jury weighs forensic evidence (which, btw, was testified to during the grand jury by appropriate professionals). Who ever said the gj "decides" forensic evidence? Are you just trying to make ridiculous arguments in an attempt to add weight to your opinions?

It doesn't take 100 days to decide if a crime has been committed, it takes 100 days to figure out how to tell people one wasn't.

It takes as long as it takes. Just because you have some conspiracy theory in your head and some arbitrary timeline that you think was over-stepped does not mean that you know what you're talking about.

It's readily apparent that you have zero expertise in the legal field, have never worked in the legal field, have never assisted attorneys or agents in preparing for trial, or that you even have the slightest real-world understanding of how the American Justice System works. Your posts are ill-informed, and only serve as distractions from comments that may actually hold some positive input in this case.

Keep your consipiracy theory alive--that's all well and good--but quit stating things as if they are fact, because you're wrong on almost everything I'm seeing you post.

a reply to: windword

And yet you take other witness testimony as fact? Logical fallacies abound, good sir/madam.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I don't care what Wilson testified to. He changed his story at least 3 times before that. Wilson shouldn't be considered to be telling the truth just because he says he is.

The forensic evidence does not lie.....I posted clips from the released docs showing Brown was indeed partially inside the car and his hand was on Wilson's weapon. This is not hard people....Brown was a thug and died....the end.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If you're trying to imply that the grand jury process doesn't have enough evidence at its disposal to make a proper decision, you are grossly mistaken.

Evidence submitted by the Ferguson PD and presented by the DA ? Cops presenting evidence against cops? Whats the track record on that?

The evidence chain of custody is compromised by keeping it, the investigation and any findings in Ferguson.

Not because its proven to be manipulated, but because it could be manipulated. Anybody can see that.

If that proceeding were truly impartial, if Ferguson was truly sincere about getting to the bottom of this they would have allowed a prosecutor from outside Ferguson to present the case to a Grand Jury.

Like see? We are remaining impartial. That they didn't and took over a hundred days his telling. Let alone squashing protests, militarizing the town and then letting it burn.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
I think everyone here is an adult, with critical thinking skills. I'm confident my fellow ATS members can handle their own thought processes, and make up their own minds. The perpetuation of falsities have been on all sides of this case from the beginning, as I see it. However, as I said on the first page, one of the reasons I chose to post this was exactly because of the sources used, and in addition, the very title of the article.

Sensationalist titles have a tendency to set the tone in many peoples minds as they read the information that follows. Especially when the "sources" chosen fall into the realm of the best source that fits the authors bias. Many of the sources used, including testimony, have been biased to one side or the other, creating a wide rift in the "court of public opinion". And with very few exceptions, most of those sources are next to worthless. Which I believe has been found to be the case for the most part in this thread. The forensics are probably the most important information we have, and even that was botched to some degree, and in my opinion, intentionally so.

My intention was not to "perpetuate falsities" as you say, but rather to shine a light on a major problem when it comes to cases likes these. That of media and "authorities" intentionally muddying the waters, so the public can never reach a clear verdict by solely looking at the actual "evidence" presented. Any verdict we reach as individuals will always be tainted with some amount of doubt, that we must rationalize away in some fashion. Well, at least among those who are trying to be objective.

A close friend of mine in St. Louis, was once told by a cop, "Give me any reason to shoot you, because that would make my day. I guarantee you there will only be one story. Mine. The media, and all the evidence will show I killed your ass in self defense."
Quite a statement coming from a public servant, eh? Especially for a routine traffic stop. For the record, I think Brown and Wilson are both guilty in this incident, but it is the media, and those working behind the scenes on this case that should be indicted for obstruction of justice at the very least. But hey, I have my own biases.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's readily apparent that you have zero expertise in the legal field, have never worked in the legal field, have never assisted attorneys or agents in preparing for trial,

There_was_no_trial.

Another thing that is odd that never came out before was that Brown also had a bag of marijuana on him. Guessing this was not in the media because they were trying to make him out as a good kid?

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Vasa, you have done an exemplary job of bringing info into this thread, and I truly appreciate it, you, and EVERYONE who participated along with you. Thanks to all of you!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

And yet you take other witness testimony as fact? Logical fallacies abound, good sir/madam.

Not necessarily, but the witnesses have nothing to loose. Wilson has everything to loose.

I'm not arguing that Brown wasn't partially inside the car. I'm arguing the reason he was partially inside the car.

Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

And yet you take other witness testimony as fact? Logical fallacies abound, good sir/madam.

Not necessarily, but the witnesses have nothing to loose. Wilson has everything to loose.

I'm not arguing that Brown wasn't partially inside the car. I'm arguing the reason he was partially inside the car.

Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.

Did his hand accidentally grab Wilson's gun too? Page before this one is the forensic report showing Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun. Please spare me......

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Now, I'm of the camp that possession of Marijuana doesn't make one a bad person. I did the marijuanas when I was kid, too. I'd say I'm a (well, kinda) stable person. I get that legally, this is a crime, but I personally feel possession of mj shouldn't be a crime. Now, what he did in that store IS a crime.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I don't care what Wilson testified to. He changed his story at least 3 times before that. Wilson shouldn't be considered to be telling the truth just because he says he is.

The forensic evidence does not lie.....I posted clips from the released docs showing Brown was indeed partially inside the car and his hand was on Wilson's weapon. This is not hard people....Brown was a thug and died....the end.

I find your last sentence a little hard to swallow. When I was a kid I hit a police officer, did I deserve to die? Did Rodney king deserve to die? Would you call a white kid a thug as well if he did the same thing and was shot?

Is it not okay to ask questions? Or...as must be the case, you have ALL the answers and we should just ask you? In your world anyone that commits a physical crime must be shot dead?

Serious questions.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

And yet you take other witness testimony as fact? Logical fallacies abound, good sir/madam.

Not necessarily, but the witnesses have nothing to loose. Wilson has everything to loose.

I'm not arguing that Brown wasn't partially inside the car. I'm arguing the reason he was partially inside the car.

Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.

Did his hand accidentally grab Wilson's gun too? Page before this one is the forensic report showing Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun. Please spare me......

I've already explained to you and others, how I see that could have happened, at least twice. You accused me of trolling. Please don't be obtuse.

a reply to: amazing

No, hitting an officer does not mean you deserve to die. Going for the officer's gun also does not mean you DESERVE to die. No, Rodney King did not DESERVE to die.

NOBODY deserves to die unless they commit a terrible, terrible crime in my mind. But the officer defended himself in a situation in which he feared for his life.

And yes, I would call a white kid a thug if he had done the same thing and been shot. Thugs are thugs, skin color does not factor into the equation.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I don't care what Wilson testified to. He changed his story at least 3 times before that. Wilson shouldn't be considered to be telling the truth just because he says he is.

The forensic evidence does not lie.....I posted clips from the released docs showing Brown was indeed partially inside the car and his hand was on Wilson's weapon. This is not hard people....Brown was a thug and died....the end.

I find your last sentence a little hard to swallow. When I was a kid I hit a police officer, did I deserve to die? Did Rodney king deserve to die? Would you call a white kid a thug as well if he did the same thing and was shot?

Is it not okay to ask questions? Or...as must be the case, you have ALL the answers and we should just ask you? In your world anyone that commits a physical crime must be shot dead?

Serious questions.

Rodney King didn't die from his encounter.

I would say it was a bad decision to hit a police officer, but that is not all he did. He assaulted him, went for his gun then tried to come back at him.....that is a life threatening situation.

Yes, I would call any kid a thug that had just done the same thing....robbed a store, assaulted an officer, etc...

Questions are great, but when the questions have been answered over and over with forensic evidence it gets very old and the dead horse is starting to smell.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

And yet you take other witness testimony as fact? Logical fallacies abound, good sir/madam.

Not necessarily, but the witnesses have nothing to loose. Wilson has everything to loose.

I'm not arguing that Brown wasn't partially inside the car. I'm arguing the reason he was partially inside the car.

Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.

Did his hand accidentally grab Wilson's gun too? Page before this one is the forensic report showing Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun. Please spare me......

I've already explained to you and others, how I see that could have happened, at least twice. You accused me of trolling. Please don't be obtuse.

Well he sure did fall pretty far into the officers car to be able to slap him in the face a few times and get his hand down to his gun on his hip before it was drawn.....almost sounds as if he dove right in when he tripped.....

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I don't care what Wilson testified to. He changed his story at least 3 times before that. Wilson shouldn't be considered to be telling the truth just because he says he is.

The forensic evidence does not lie.....I posted clips from the released docs showing Brown was indeed partially inside the car and his hand was on Wilson's weapon. This is not hard people....Brown was a thug and died....the end.

well...I guess we don't need the courts or defense attorneys, just have "evidence" submitted to closed grand jury...and poof, we have a binding legal decision...so, if your son was shot and killed by a policeman, you wouldn't even consider a trial, you would say your son deserved it and the policeman was just doing his job....ok....cuz that would save the taxpayers a lot of money

a reply to: NotMoose

What don't you get?

Is Wilson the victim or the accused?

a reply to: Klassified

I fully respect the intention of shining a light on how everyone with a national bullhorn who says something about a case while the investigation is still ongoing is muddying the waters. If that was your intent, I think it was lost a little bit, as it seemed to me that you were trying to post these links in order to validate the author's opinion.

Be that as it may, I see many people on here who even blatantly disregard forensic evidence, for one reason or another, so I have to argue against your opinion that everyone here has critical-thinking skills--maybe they do, but they don't always seem to employ logic or reason in the process, and often appear to let biases dictate whether they agree with the findings of investigations.

I tend to direct my comments to those individuals, as my years of training and employment in prosecutors', defense attorneys', and criminal investigation divisions at the federal level tend to keep my eyes on the evidence only. I understand fully that it is not the norm to think that way, especially in highly emotional incidents like this one, or Trayvon Martin, but when I hear people spout off about conspiracy theories and "facts," for which there is no concrete evidence, it just makes it hard for my eyes to ignore.

But you and I can agree that the media--if it were recognized legally as a single entity--should be held accountable in a court of law for all the crap they pull in cases like this.