Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

a reply to: Greven

All I see there is that 3 people, possibly more, didn't believe the testimony enough. And then I'm back to it doesn't matter whether it's 3 or 12. Since the voting results are sealed and won't be disclosed (or at least aren't supposed to be) it seems me that any debate over voting numbers is an endless exercise in futility.

Don't get me wrong: I see and understand the point you're making. But for all intents and purposes, it's an all or nothing situation, regardless of how the voting went down.

No matter what the numbers were we can now see that there was probable caue to indict. We can not know if the failure was presentation or corruption but there is probable cause for at the least the lesser of the charges and the reasons are listed in this thread. The main problem i have is that an officer that disreguards police procedure is back at work somewhere. That does not mean their is guilt in the case either way but that there were many points of doubt as to if procedures were followed amoung various other reasons including an overwhelming support from the public for this to go to trial in open court.

a reply to: deadeyedick

What makes you say there's probable cause to indict? Not trolling, but I'm not scrolling through 100-odd pages to find what you're referring to.

a reply to: Shamrock6
This is a diagram provided by the investigation that I have verified to be pretty accurate using crime scene photography.

You've fired a pistol, so you know roughly how far casings can travel - like most modern semiautomatic pistols, P229s eject casings up and much further to the right. I'm estimating below that they have a maximum of 7.5 ft travel distance. As you know, casings can bounce or roll, so the indicative circles may not be entirely accurate. In my experience casings don't usually travel more than that, though.

Most tellingly, casings 11, 12, 21, and 22 are above a gentle curb in the grass, verified from photographic evidence at the scene (though they look almost in the street from this diagram). Considering the angles involved, Wilson's narrative becomes a bit more questionable.

As Wilson and Johnson disagreed about some things (2 shots in car vs 1), and as Wilson's story to the grand jury is a bit different than his story to the investigators immediately after the shooting (1 shot from car,8 final shots vs 2 shots at car, 10 final shots), and as there are discrepancies, there should have been probable cause for at least involuntary manslaughter to hash out these issues.

a reply to: Greven

The discrepancies in shot counts doesn't mean much to me. Somebody who doesn't shoot a lot, and regularly, isn't going to be composed enough to count their shots in a situation that isn't on the range.

As far as where the casings were found, that shows that there was a foot chase and then a final engagement. Sooo....? Again, not trolling, just not seeing how it's probable cause.

a reply to: Shamrock6

right on.
the biggest factor is the first witness to the last 10 rnds fired is now a missing person. that alone would do


from what i had known about these types of court gatherings is that they gather to find out if any contridicting evidence exist. not to determine the credibility of any of the accounts because of the closed type setting and lact of eaqual time for both sides to present. that did not happen here we had a closed type court case that went far beyond the normal scope of bill determination.
that unless challenged somehow gives precedence for future cases.

wilson made first contact from inside his vehicle he grabbed browns arm. not police procedure

arter the two scattered from the police cruiser he gave chase to one of two potentially armed suspects leaving himself helpless if they were armed. at that point he left the vehicle called for backup he should have waited for it because he was injured and one perp was behind him and the other in front.

when he was injured he rushed the suspect in front and bu his statements he only had one question in his head "can i kill this guy?".


that does not even touch on the history of this police unit and the conditions in msm yrs ago when he was hired there was overwhelming support for them to hire people that would not ask questions. bacically i would summ up the three weeks the town spent in msm as calling for killers to control the black pop. there in that town with a huge history of racial tensions ever since mlk.

others have many reason for probable cause but those are mine and are not facts of guilt but points of the event that warrented a true bill to get all the facts out in open court.

all my post before the no bill were based on what msm provided for us and i was convinced this was justified until i heard what all the prosecuter statment was during the announcement. america will not rest until we get to the bottom of all this openly.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I'm not sure where you found that Wilson made first contact by grabbing Brown's arm. Wilson stated Brown shoved his vehicle door back into him twice. That's first contact. I don't recall seeing anywhere that Wilson initiated contact by grabbing Brown.

You're confusing the issues. Not following what you believe to be "normal" or "procedure" isn't probable cause. Literally nothing that you cited meets the definition of probable cause. A witness disappeared? Okay, while that's suspicious and irregular, it doesn't mean it's probable cause, unless you're investigating a witness tampering charge. And no, what you believe a grand jury for is not at all accurate. A grand jury reviews evidence, listens to statements, asks questions if they have any, then determines whether the evidence and statements presented meets the criteria for probable cause to return a true bill.

a reply to: Greven

That's not a bizarre take, that's what happens...

It didn't work out the way you wanted, sorry about that.

a reply to: Shamrock6

no you are wrong but let's say you are right and move on here.

many witness statments were taken away. that is not regular and now can change these events. your mind is alrready made up it seems.

even after some witnesses were pressured by police to say something else at the end they had contridicting accounts of the last shots and if he was on knees with hands up and autopsy supports both.

all it takes is reasonable doubt not judgment of guilt.


we could argue this bs all day but until a proper ear is givin to what is the problems here being covered up by shills then america will continue to burn. this is not a game any longer to many people the line has been drawn and all they are asking for is an open debate covering all the situation and all the factors.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Shamrock6

no you are wrong but let's say you are right and move on here.

many witness statments were taken away. that is not regular and now can change these events. your mind is alrready made up it seems.

even after some witnesses were pressured by police to say something else at the end they had contridicting accounts of the last shots and if he was on knees with hands up and autopsy supports both.

all it takes is reasonable doubt not judgment of guilt.


we could argue this bs all day but until a proper ear is givin to what is the problems here being covered up by shills then america will continue to burn. this is not a game any longer to many people the line has been drawn and all they are asking for is an open debate covering all the situation and all the factors.

even after some witnesses were pressured by police to say something else at the end they had contridicting accounts of the last shots and if he was on knees with hands up and autopsy supports both.

What in the heck are you talking about?

Would you mind elaborating?

I've read ALL 104 pages of this thread and you've stated you've read 5,000 pages regarding the case. That being said; how in Gods name have you come to conclusion?

It doesn't make sense what your saying. It's convoluted at BEST.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Okay, you need to clarify a lot of what you're asserting. I'm wrong. Okay, about what? My clothing selection today? Or something I've said? If it's something I said, then be specific.

Which witness statements were "taken away" and what does "taken away" even mean? The grand jury heard from approximately 60 witnesses. So who was "taken away?" And who was pressured? Are you really asserting that the same police whom nearly the entire town of Ferguson was rallied against managed to convince witnesses to change their story? The same police who so many people were against managed to convince all these people to change their stories?

You're right. All it takes to not indict is a reasonable doubt. Because a reasonable doubt means there's no probable cause. Because probable cause means it's probable, but not proven. Beyond all reasonable doubt is a level of proof reserved for actual criminal trial.

You added to yours and since I'm replying, I will add to mine: again, you appear to be confusing the issue. You seem to want an indictment based off things that are, at best, peripheral to the main investigation. You can't reasonably expect a grand jury to indict somebody for murder because a witness has disappeared. The two issues, while they may turn out to be related, are separate legal issues.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greven

The discrepancies in shot counts doesn't mean much to me. Somebody who doesn't shoot a lot, and regularly, isn't going to be composed enough to count their shots in a situation that isn't on the range.

As far as where the casings were found, that shows that there was a foot chase and then a final engagement. Sooo....? Again, not trolling, just not seeing how it's probable cause.

I failed to mention a few other things, my omission - Wilson said that he fired one shot, which caused blood to cover his hand and glass to explode from the lowered window. This is also an explanation for how he could have had DNA on the gun that 'supports' Wilson's narrative of Brown grabbing his gun. Nobody other than Wilson - no witness that I have read - has indicated Brown laid a finger on Wilson's gun. Wilson thought the bullet had gone through the door and struck Brown. It did not penetrate the exterior door. Wilson said Brown resumed attacking him at this point, in the SUV, when he fired blindly after a further struggle. Only then did he see Brown flee. He said he saw a puff of dirt, indicating that he thought a bullet had struck the ground. It's possible that it was a ricochet, but that seems unlikely; there was a bullet embedded south side of the exterior of an apartment building south of his vehicle, at a very sharp angle that makes a shot from inside the vehicle rather suspect.

Johnson, on the other hand, said Wilson fired once in the SUV, he saw blood - thought it was from a chest wound - then they ran from the SUV, matching Wilson's initial statement to investigators pretty well. He claims the second shot only happened when Wilson left the vehicle after at least several seconds. However, this doesn't precisely explain that shot angle, either, because Brown would have been further down the street by this point. It's likely here that Wilson's second statement is closer to the truth, but it is odd that the casing is so far away from the SUV.

However, the foot chase is a bit more problematic. Note the position of the apparent projectile, labeled 17, on the map. That is shot probably angled downwards in order to achieve that. Also note the position of the casings compared to the path Brown likely traveled - from the blood stains to his final resting place in the middle of the street. The casing closest to the blood is very close to where Brown would have been when he turned; however, Wilson said he kept about 30 feet from Brown when he suddenly turned. This would line up more with the casing found furthest east in the grass.

Consider the angles there - the 4 casings in the grass are rather problematic every way you look at it from the testimony. This is the sort of thing that should be hashed out at a trial, with cross examination and such - not grand jury.

a reply to: Greven

I would posit that nobody other than Wilson COULD say whether Brown went for his gun or not. The gun was inside the vehicle. Unless somebody were standing directly next to either the passenger or driver side window, they wouldn't be able to state definitively what took place inside the vehicle.

As for the "apparent projectile" you cited with #17, I got nothin. Negligent discharge. Wildly misplaced shot. Panic shot. All are theoretically viable, but beyond that I have no explanation.

The shell casings are about what I would expect from somebody who was shooting while backing up, which Wilson stated he was doing. His weapon is weaving left and right as he moves, as well as trying to track a target at the same time. Sigs can eject casings up to 15 feet in some cases. If Wilson began firing when Brown turned and then backpedaled from that point, I would expect to see a cone of shell casings from the initial firing point to the final firing point.

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Shamrock6



no you are wrong but let's say you are right and move on here.



many witness statments were taken away. that is not regular and now can change these events. your mind is alrready made up it seems.



even after some witnesses were pressured by police to say something else at the end they had contridicting accounts of the last shots and if he was on knees with hands up and autopsy supports both.



all it takes is reasonable doubt not judgment of guilt.





we could argue this bs all day but until a proper ear is givin to what is the problems here being covered up by shills then america will continue to burn. this is not a game any longer to many people the line has been drawn and all they are asking for is an open debate covering all the situation and all the factors.

even after some witnesses were pressured by police to say something else at the end they had contridicting accounts of the last shots and if he was on knees with hands up and autopsy supports both.

What in the heck are you talking about?



Would you mind elaborating?



I've read ALL 104 pages of this thread and you've stated you've read 5,000 pages regarding the case. That being said; how in Gods name have you come to conclusion?



It doesn't make sense what your saying. It's convoluted at BEST.

now we just entered into a bunch of pointless questions. ias you do not understand what i said i do not understand what you are asking and i have not stated anything about me doing any long reading. what do you want elaboration on?

do not be confused by the shill now trying to bend the point of my statments. i have been clear in many post in this thread but do not mind trying to help you understand my different way that i write compared to most.

simple fact is that several points of doubt that warrented a true bill have been stated and the most blaring are left behind to attack some of the less obvious ones.

there is no way possible to serve justice with missing witnesses and then having your witnesses being basicaly cross examined by members of a local governing body that has a racial past. reexamination and requestioning of witnesses is not for this type of closed event.

wilson forced the shooting by engauging one of two suspects by reaching through his car window before ever opening the door and grabbing a man eaqual to his size plus a few pounds. that was beyond procedure and was a no win situation. he done this because cigars were thrown into his vehicle.

the altercation was over and then wilson while claiming being near knocked out chased after one of two possibly armed men both in opposite directions from himself and back up was on the way yet he again broke procedure and chased and in an unconcious state of mind he asked himself if he could shoot at one of two possibly armed suspects then began firing with sparatic accuracy into a neighbor hood street in the afternoon. i am suggesting that there many unemployed trained people that would be better suited for his job because his actions demand accountability in an open court.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Ahhh you've now devolved into name calling. Specifically, calling me a shill. Because I don't agree with you and am pointing out things you don't like or care to see.

And with that, you've lost any shred of credibility to me. Which is really a shame, because up till that comment I thought we were engaged in a simple act of point/counter point. But no, if somebody doesn't agree with you, we must call them names!

a reply to: Shamrock6

so you must be happy with the voices of much of america being ignored because they wanted a trial and so you come here likely paid or just twisted enough to get off on seeing our country burn because everything gets twisted by a local gov. with a corrupted past and you support police shootings where improper procedures lead to deaths. can you see how if these two were real armed thugs then wilson would be dead because he left the saftey of cover while being surrounded? remember that same logic of wondering if they were armed was used by him to justify firing on one of them and killing him.

you label yourself as shill supreme while trying to play petty child games of accusing me of resorting to name calling. imo shills are paid and if you tout that then we can safley assume you are paid to be ignorrant here.

i have found that these avatars have a real good way of representing who we really are. it is not name calling on my part but paying attention to the fact and pointing it out. you gave the reason why.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Given the fact that you've resorted to name calling, I'm no longer interested in any discourse with you.

Oddly enough, Greven and I have been exchanging comments here and in other threads, and though there have been disagreements, nobody has resorted to name calling. And despite those disagreements, we continue to engage with each other.

And yes, I do have myself tagged as shill supreme. Because you're not the first person here to assume anybody who disagrees with you must be a shill. As for "petty childish games," coming from somebody who's resorted to name calling, that's rich spot on though. I'm nothing but bones, and routinely sit in a big comfy chair while wearing nothing but a black cloak. It's just sorta my thing.

Ta-ta!

a reply to: Shamrock6

no need to get panties in wad if you are gonna ignore facts the way you have while the country is up in arms and the have SHILL SUPREME in your avatar then you should be able to see how that points one to believe what you are saying.

as for mine i am a bit of a dick and when young i was put into the mouth of a hundred lb catfish and took a picture.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Seems to me you're the one who's panties are all twisted around. Somebody doesn't agree with me?!! OH EM GEE THEY MUST BE A SHILL. Stop with the petty insults.

If you ever get back to facts and not opinions or insults or name calling because you can't speak to your point any further, let me know and we can continue to debate.

Otherwise this will be the last response you get from me. Buhbye

a reply to: Shamrock6

ok so we both wear panties.

i have exausted all the facts i have found and showed multiple instances that were beyond propable cause. we will never satisfy either side here but we should be able to see now that something was not done properly in this case and if it went to trial then many points you raised would be taken into account as would some of mine.

straight from the prosecuters mouth came the words that the jury was left with contridicting statments of the last shots and another witness besides those that they were left with also contridicted the last shots but that witness along with another is now missing persons. therefore until we can put aside trying to find guilt and trying to act lik an counter explaination of any statment should allow the jury to disreguard any statments is false and not the job of that type of jury.

their job is to be presented with all statments and decide if any statments contridict any others and if so then that is probable cause. when the witnesses were questioned a second time in secret that opened the door for any corruption to come into play and is the point where any witnesses could have been tampered with if they were at all.

the publics cryies for a trial should not have been ignored givin that even you have stated at least one of my points has merit in your mind and justice is for all and not just to protect cops which i am in favor of.


9 of 12 jurors were white in a racially fueled case where racial stats were taken county wide instead of a closer view of the city where this happened. since this was turned into race it then became unfair although i believe if i was a juror race would not matter but if you tie in any possible ties to secret clubs then that could be another problem.

i get that by nature of what you see as us being on different sides of this you will have points of contention for the majority of mine but how about you go back now and pick one or two of the most questionable points i made and then give us the answer of not guilt but of probable cause for an open court trial on any of the charges such as even the lesser. be honest here.