Justice Department: No Darren Wilson charges

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Accepting your claim he reached into the vehicle and punched Wilson. (Majority witnesses say Wilson appeared to be pulling brown in.)
Accepting your version of the the fatal shots. ( accounts differ from turned hands up to charged Wilson.)
There will be no trial to determine which witnesses are lying. But if the reports of the multiple witnesses are true that Wilson got out of his car running and shooting. I feel he is guilty of a crime. Even if the eventual murder is justified.

Maybe you would be more sympathetic to the Albuquerque NM case caught on video. White guy....

originally posted by: HighFive
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Accepting your claim he reached into the vehicle and punched Wilson. (Majority witnesses say Wilson appeared to be pulling brown in.)
Accepting your version of the the fatal shots. ( accounts differ from turned hands up to charged Wilson.)
There will be no trial to determine which witnesses are lying. But if the reports of the multiple witnesses are true that Wilson got out of his car running and shooting. I feel he is guilty of a crime. Even if the eventual murder is justified.

Maybe you would be more sympathetic to the Albuquerque NM case caught on video. White guy....

It's not about versions, it's about a preponderance of evidence to prove one's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence failed (miserably, I might add) to meet that necessity for a crime to have been committed. Furthermore, there wasn't even enough evidence for Eric Holder's Justice Department to prefer charges for civil rights violations. Whether you accept the evidence and the conclusions is irrelevent to the evidence and conclusions.

As for diverting the attention to another case, that has no relevance to what I'm discussing, either. And don't imply I'm not sympathetic to this case--I feel for Michael Brown's family and friends as well as for the officer and his family whose career and lives were destroyed because of irresponsible reporting and community members who jumped to conclusions. Ad hominem attacks have no place here.

originally posted by: HighFive
I was pointing out firing at someone running away is illegal and should be..
That's what multiple witnesses say Wilson did.

Despite what multiple witnesses say, the autopsy showed no bullet wounds to the back. Plus it was shown that many "witness" statements to the grand jury were false.

a reply to: HighFive

I look forward to your arguments in appeals court.



What is your strategy to dispel Brown's DNA found on Wilson's hand?

a reply to: xuenchen

Claiming racism in every single situation is the apologists only strategy.

Don't expect them to actually use any amount of common sense-especially when one of their pet criminals is rightfully (and thankfully) put down.

originally posted by: xuenchen
What is your strategy to dispel Brown's DNA found on Wilson's hand?

This strategy right here -
Evidence: Brown’s DNA Was on Interior Door Handle of Police Vehicle

(CNSNews.com)- DNA Analysis Report released Monday night following the grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown shows Brown’s DNA was on the interior driver’s-side door handle of Wilson’s police vehicle.

That evidence matches with Wilson’s story that Brown reached inside the car and attacked him.

Many DNA samples were taken from the scene where Wilson shot and killed Brown, including from the exterior and interior of Wilson’s police vehicle.

A sample labeled “Q18” was taken from the “interior left front door handle” of Wilson’s Tahoe and was “consistent with being a mixture of two or more individuals,” said page three of the DNA Analysis Report.

“This profile can be separated into a major male contributor profile and one or more minor contributors,” said the analysis. “Michael Brown is the source of the major male contributor profile. Due to the limited genetic information available from the minor component the presence or absence of P.O. Wilson cannot be determined.”

The evidence appears to support Wilson’s claim that Brown reached through his window and came at least partially into the vehicle early in the altercation.

Click link for remainder of article.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: HighFive

I look forward to your arguments in appeals court.

What is your strategy to dispel Brown's DNA found on Wilson's hand?

Obviously he got shot in the hand at the car, my point was shooting at him running away.. Not the varying stories of the struggle at the car, not the varying stories of the fatal shots.
But why would an unarmed man go after an armed police officer? In the car or out,after being shot in the hand?

And appeals court? This didn't even make it to court period.....

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Good, because all evidence in this single, lone case showed that nothing he did was illegal.

1. Witness lied, as seen in court records and witness statements, yet this witness was believed above all others. First theu stated that they were 100 yards away, then they changed it to 50 yards away in court.

2. The investigator stated on record that it "was clear what happened" from the moment he arrived on the scene (and then subsequently failed to take appropriate evidence, photographs, measurements etc). This shows CLEAR bias and a complete lack of professionalism. It's not his job to say what happened and make assumptions of guilt or responsibility, it is his job to take FACTUAL data, collate it, and present it. He should have been fired immediately and anything he said disregarded, he was bias in favor of the officer before he even set foot on the scene.

3. Wilson was permitted to leave the scene and do as he liked for several hours, this is entirely unacceptable according to professional investigators in numerous other states who all said this was either extremely deficient practice or deliberate corruption of process.

4. Wilson was permitted to wash evidence from his hands immediately after the event, in private, without evidence having been taken.

5. Wilson was allowed to handle his own gun and hand his own gun in for evidence hours after the shooting. Again, others have said this is either massive failures of basic procedure or a deliberate act.

6. Wilson claimed to show bruising on the side of his face, yet colleagues were heard asking him where he had been hit, because there were no visible marks prior to that amazing piece of PR photography the press were so eager to show off to the world.

I could go on, but all of the above are reasons why there should have been a trial. The Grand Jury process is supposed to exist to decide if there is CAUSE for a trial, all of these issues should have meant that a trial was automatic, somehow even they failed to do their damned jobs - surprisingly.

a reply to: HighFive
my point was shooting at him running away..

But why would an unarmed man go after an armed police officer? In the car or out,after being shot in the hand?

Brown was hopped up not to mention probably nuts.

And he wasn't shot in the back either.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Regarding grand juries...

A grand jury has the leaway to indict an individual in a way no prosecutor ever could. When a prosecutor files charges they are required to have probable cause. In the case of a Grand Jury the standard is less - Preponderance of Evidence, as opposed to Probable cause.

hence the saying a Grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. If a grand jury fails to indict, and knowing they have a less standard than the PA, trying to claim cover up / corruption does not really work.

Ref some of your points -
Any time an individual is killed by another person, even by police, is a homicide. Its up to the coroner / medical Examiner / investigators to determine fi that "homicide" was justified.

Secondly if an officer shoots and kills an individual they are considered suspects to a possible crime. That means they have the exact same constitutional rights that everyone else have. That would include the right to remain silent, to refuse to provide evidence against themselves, etc.

There are 3 separate investigations for an officer involved shooting -
1 - Criminal investigation - usually handled by an outside agency - Local / State law applies. Miranda Rights can apply.
2 - Civil Rights investigation - handled by the FBI / other agencies at that level - Federal law 42 USC 1983
3 - Internal affairs investigation - handled by the agency the officer works for. It is a review of the officers actions with the question did the officers actions violate departmental policies / guidelines. Garrity Rights apply.


As for washing his hands - There is a test we can do that allows us to essentially sponge the area of a hand to confirm whether or not gun shot residue is present. The presence of gunshot residue does not mean the person discharged a firearm. You can get GSR just by being close to a discharging firearm.

Duty weapon - I have always been trained to secure a firearm as evidence, regardless if its a civilian or an officer. However, failure to do so does not mean corruption. using the same weapon the lab can discharge a round through it and then compare it to the recovered slugs and matched.

Wilson was assaulted and there were photographs taken of those injuries. People need to understand that life is not a movie. Often times if you are hit hard enough, redness and swelling can appear quickly however deep bruising can take many hours to fully develop. When we investigate assaults / domestic assaults we will often photograph the areas the victim says was the area of impact. We will go back a couple of days later and take additional photographs to document the bruising / damage done.

As for stating its clear what happened I think you are reading into that to far. The call was shots fired and that is exactly what was present at the scene. Processing of the body during autopsy is where the stated actions of those involved can be checked / confirmed.

Secondly an outside agency conducted the criminal investigation, which included interviews and evidence processing.

just thought I would point these things out.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Sorry, fella, but even Eric Holder agrees that nothing illegal, nor violating of Brown's civil rights, occurred during that encounter. Furthermore, the Justic Department even stated that Brown's hands were not raised in a gesture of surrender, like all the lying 'witnesses' said they were. The whole "hands-up-don't-shoot" chant is based on a lie.

But let's look at your comments (that have no links to proof, btw):

1. That's not illegal--intentional lying on sworn statements or in court is perjury, but refining or changing a distance at which you stood during an event is not perjury unless it was intentionally misleading. Can you prove it was?

2. Wrong--it absolutely is an investigator's job to investigate, gather facts, and determine to their best knowledge how the facts add up to explain what happened. Your assertion that he should be fired is ridiculous. And it appears that you should not be one to call out biases in this case. Also, nothing was illegal done by the investigator.

3. I don't disagree with this, but since you responded to only the portion of my comment talking about doing illegal things, I must point out that this is not illegal. It may be a breach of protocol, but it's not illegal.

4. See #3 above.

5. See #4 above.

6. You obviously don't have an understanding of bruising. Most bruising does not occur immediately, but shows up hours or even days later, depending on how deep the bruising occurred. This assertion of yours is (a) not illegal, and (b) a red herring argument.

Yes, you could have gone on, but it would have been an even bigger waste of time, because NOTHING that you wrote out is illegal, yet you responded to my claim that Wilson did nothing illegal as if you were trying to prove that he did. He did not, and you proved nothing.

The grand jury process examines evidence pertaining only to the proposed charges and nothing more--trust me, dealing with trials and grand jury hearing is my full-time job. Analyzing evidence in preparation for the jury is my full-time job. I don't need lectured by you as if you're making some grand point--you have failed to properly argue against my point to which you responded. It would do you well to better understand the legal system and what actually equates to illegal activities--breaches of protocol are not generally illegal illegal unless you can prove they were done with criminal intent. You can't in this case, and neither could prosecutors nor the Justice Department.

originally posted by: xuenchen

a reply to: HighFive
my point was shooting at him running away..

But why would an unarmed man go after an armed police officer? In the car or out,after being shot in the hand?

Brown was hopped up not to mention probably nuts.

And he wasn't shot in the back either.

\
Oh for the love of Pete!

"Hopped up"? On what? The only reasonable answer based on the cigarillo thing is marijuana. And we all know how that particular drug sends folks into a berserker-like rage, don't we? /sarcasm

"Hopped up." Hello 1954.

Please cite anything, anywhere, anytime that suggests in any way that Michael Brown was "nuts."

Does the forensic evidence support your ideas? If not, isn't there enough confusion about this issue without adding gratuitous nonsense?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The medical tests confirmed he had Marijuana in his system although I tend to agree with you that it is a non-factor in the situation. the actions of Michael Brown were his alone and did not need anything in his system to make the poor choice he did that resulted in his death.

If you want to try and link the drug use we can do that. He committed a strong armed robbery, which is a felony, for items commonly used for Marijuana. If the intent was to use those then his actions revolved around drug use.

Either way the actions were his and he chose poorly.

The only person to blame is Michael Brown - NOT society.