KU Journalism Major Shreds “Case” Against Mike Brown

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.

Good answer...I know King didn't die, but if Wilson would have been there he would have. We also don't know what happened in Ferguson. Did Wilson Grab Brown and pull him against the car...just asking.

You also know, as well as I do, that these days...Thug is a term usually reserved for black criminals. Just saying. You know it is. That's why that is a valid question.

We also don't know if Brown was a good kid that just made some bad decisions. Had he already had a run in with Wilson previously. That brings up the whole point of Wilson and the KKK.. Is that a valid link or just something made up. Did Wilson aggrevate the situation instead of handle it professionally?

Again good questions. You may be smarter than me, but sometimes I'll ask the same question a few times. to a few different people in a few different ways to make sure I have all the information.

a reply to: jimmyx

If my kid robbed a store, got stopped by a cop went for the policeman's gun, punched him, and then charged at him even after being shot... Well, I'd have to say I made some terrible choices as parent to let a kid go that far down into thuggery.

I'd be devastated. Nobody wants to lose a family member. I'd also let the Justice System do it's work. If they conclude that the officer acted in self defense, that would be that.

I'd sad, I'd grieve for my child, but I would not demand the officer face prosecution for carrying out his duty.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yes, there is blood in that car, yes, the forensics determined it was Brown's blood AND tissue on the inside of the door of the car, yes it was consistent with his wound and having been shot in the hand while it was INSIDE the car.

Blood in a car is blood in a car, nothing more.

You seem stuck on this. "Indicates", "consistent" and "pics" aren't forensics. Sorry about that.

a reply to: intrptr

There was the beginning step of a trial--a grand jury--and it decided that there was not probable cause to charge Wilson with any wrongdoing. This was decided with WAY more evidence submitted than most grand juries ever see--evidence that you are choosing to ignore or disregard due to your conspiracy theory.

Your comment doesn't negate the fact that grand juries are a part of the judicial process (a mandated part, in many states), nor that it seems you have zero experience in the legal field.

originally posted by: Klassified
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!

Thanks...great thread!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, should we just ignore all media reports and just listen to those who makes claims on the internet that they know better?

We should just accept the "Official Version" given us by those who have the most to loose, even when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.

you do realize this "forensic evidence" was gathered AFTER Wilson left the scene and "cleaned up", how convenient

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yes, there is blood in that car, yes, the forensics determined it was Brown's blood AND tissue on the inside of the door of the car, yes it was consistent with his wound and having been shot in the hand while it was INSIDE the car.

Blood in a car is blood in a car, nothing more.

You seem stuck on this. "Indicates", "consistent" and "pics" aren't forensics. Sorry about that.

Except in this case, through DNA analysis, the DNA inside the car and on the gun are a match for Brown....so not just blood in a car.

a reply to: intrptr

The blood in car was tested, and verified as brown's. Brown's hand was tested for GSR. It was found. The path and trajectory of the bullet in the car indicates it was fired during a struggle.

I'm sorry, but if you're looking for slamdunk evidence of Brown assaulting Wilson, you won't get it. Forensics don't work that way. I made a post earlier in the thread on the "The CSI Effect".

Average people tend to expect a LOT more than is really possible from forensics due to these police procedural shows like CSI and NCIS.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.

you do realize this "forensic evidence" was gathered AFTER Wilson left the scene and "cleaned up", how convenient

He left...his car and gun did not.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, should we just ignore all media reports and just listen to those who makes claims on the internet that they know better?

We should just accept the "Official Version" given us by those who have the most to loose, even when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

No, but eventually you have to accept the truth of the situation. Media puts a spin on everything....forensics do not spin anything. Forensics say this happened how Wilson describes it.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: jimmyx

If my kid robbed a store, got stopped by a cop went for the policeman's gun, punched him, and then charged at him even after being shot... Well, I'd have to say I made some terrible choices as parent to let a kid go that far down into thuggery.

I'd be devastated. Nobody wants to lose a family member. I'd also let the Justice System do it's work. If they conclude that the officer acted in self defense, that would be that.

I'd sad, I'd grieve for my child, but I would not demand the officer face prosecution for carrying out his duty.

then why did the officer leave the scene, before an on-site investigation take place?....remember this involved an officer SHOOTING and KILLING a suspect in broad daylight, on a public street. I don't know what LEO's do in your part of the country, but in every case I know, or have heard about, it simply doesn't happen this way.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: jimmyx

If my kid robbed a store, got stopped by a cop went for the policeman's gun, punched him, and then charged at him even after being shot... Well, I'd have to say I made some terrible choices as parent to let a kid go that far down into thuggery.

I'd be devastated. Nobody wants to lose a family member. I'd also let the Justice System do it's work. If they conclude that the officer acted in self defense, that would be that.

I'd sad, I'd grieve for my child, but I would not demand the officer face prosecution for carrying out his duty.

then why did the officer leave the scene, before an on-site investigation take place?....remember this involved an officer SHOOTING and KILLING a suspect in broad daylight, on a public street. I don't know what LEO's do in your part of the country, but in every case I know, or have heard about, it simply doesn't happen this way.

A lot of your questions would be cleared up if you'd just simply read the files. He was told by his Sargeant to take the Sargeants car and go back to the station because of the crowd already gathering and becoming hostile.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

No, but eventually you have to accept the truth of the situation.

We don't know the truth of the situation. We may know more about the truth of the situation, should this case ever go to trial, and the evidence challenged and witnesses cross examined.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The blood in car was tested, and verified as brown's. Brown's hand was tested for GSR. It was found. The path and trajectory of the bullet in the car indicates it was fired during a struggle.

Was that evidence cross examined?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I'm sorry, but if you're looking for slamdunk evidence of Brown assaulting Wilson, you won't get it.

That's not what the Grand Jury's job was. It was to establish whether or not there was "Probable Cause" to indict Wilson for NOT ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE.

I believe there was. I believe that there was credible evidence to indict Wilson in order to legally explore, through a trial, the possibility that Wilson WAS NOT ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE when he shot Brown in the head, twice.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, should we just ignore all media reports and just listen to those who makes claims on the internet that they know better?

We should just accept the "Official Version" given us by those who have the most to loose, even when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

No, but eventually you have to accept the truth of the situation. Media puts a spin on everything....forensics do not spin anything. Forensics say this happened how Wilson describes it.

I don't accept your truth, I would accept evidence arrived at by a trial, with an advocate for the dead person that was shot. apparently, that does not fit your narrative, nor the 5th, 6th, 7th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.....but you don't seem to care about that.

a reply to: windword

What you believe, and what the truth is, are at odds it seems.

The Grand Jury found no probable cause to indict.

It sucks that you don't agree with it, and you're of course entitled to believe what you want to believe, but the Grand Jury made it's decision based on the facts presented to it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No, but eventually you have to accept the truth of the situation.

We don't know the truth of the situation. We may know more about the truth of the situation, should this case ever go to trial, and the evidence challenged and witnesses cross examined.

The forensic evidence shows the truth...Brown was inside the cehicle, his hand was on Wilson's gun, he was shot inside the vehicle during a struggle.....an officer is not going to discharge a weapon inside their car unless necessary and the evidence shows that the angle of trajectory of the bullet lodged in the door is consistent with it being fired from his hip are during the struggle.

Wilson had swelling, bruising and red marks on his face from the altercation, even some to the back of his neck.

He even thought about using mace instead while in the car but decided against it because of "blowback" from being inside the vehicle he would have blinded himself too putting him in an even worse position.

He did not have a taser as there were not a lot available to their department. He had a baton and even considered using a flashlight but could not get to it on the other seat because brown was assaulting him and he did not want to let go of control of one of his arms for fear of Brown having both hands to attack.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Except in this case, through DNA analysis, the DNA inside the car and on the gun are a match for Brown….so not just blood in a car.

Collected by, tested and submitted by Ferguson PD? Or outside agencies?