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

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


But I also see that as a plus...
We've not had many death by cop in England...

Oh, no wonder. Arguing with a Londoner about such things is useless.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Are you saying the testing should be more stringent? I could agree with you on that point. I believe becoming an LEO is a little too easy in most places. But on the other hand, it shouldn't be nearly impossible.

That's exactly what I'm saying pal...
Now we're on a wavelength

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: nullafides

Fair in terms of fighting.

If you attack a LEO, they have tools to use. One of those is a firearm.

When you attack a LEO, they aren't there to go toe to toe, round and round and so on.

It is very simple. Don't want to be shot. Don't attack people.

There is a huge difference between swatting a fly with a fly swatter and launching nukes against the fly.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: luthier
But then ran away? Again the rules of engagement are that he has to be fearing his life.

Ran off a hundred feet or so and then turned around and ran back towards the officer in a very aggressive manner, refusing to stop. Brown had already assaulted the officer and tried to steal his gun. Obviously the life of Wilson was in danger. The shooting was justified.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Uh no. Officer wilson had back up and should be trained to handle the situation. Again what you are talking about is police witniss testimony not actual hard proof. I am pretty sure you dont understand police trials and what qualified immunity is. The trial was not based on justified actions.

a reply to: macman

I'm not arguing...
It's a well known fact that we have gun police in London...

I've been raided by them...


Difference is they're not as trigger happy as the U.S. police...


If anything it's uselss to argue with you on this topic!

a reply to: luthier

There is video.

Have you seen the video?
I am not aware that one exists.
During the question and answer session by the DA last night, a reporter mistakenly referred to the 'video where the last 10 shots were fired', but there is only audio of it, IIRC.

a reply to: luthier

The trial was not based on justified actions.

I am not aware that has been any trial.

CNN

Interesting point just made.

Often prosecutors will find they don't believe they have enough evidence to press official charges, so they take it to a Grand Jury.

I find that rather telling.

a reply to: nullafides

Wilson followed the escalation of force.

Again, don't want to be shot??? Don't attack someone.

If Michael Brown had never gone into that store and stolen those cigars; he would be alive today. I keep thinking that.

However...as far as a weapon he did not have one...but some say... his body was his weapon.

Wilson was in his car, I think he should have just locked his doors and waited for backup; even though Brown was coming towards him; I feel he did not need to shoot him; or at the very least... couldn't he have shot him in the arm or leg; that would have stopped him; without taking his life.

I think Michael was defending himself; after all at that time he was just a thief who had taken some cigars; he should not be dead.

These are the thoughts that go through my mind.

All the businesses that got burned down; what are those families going to do now? They aren't Michael Brown or Officer Wilson; they were not even involved in what happened; the violence and destruction makes no sense to me. I am very sad and disappointed that the protests were not peaceful.

I think Michaels parents are right...we need to make changes in the laws...and that every policeman in every city should have to wear a camera.

a reply to: nullafides

I nuked a fly once. Didn't see him until I pulled my pizza out of the microwave. Poor little bugger must have snuck in when I opened the door. Never stood a chance.

Your analogy is flawed, though. Wilson didn't "deploy nukes" to "swat" Brown. He was in legitimate fear of his life after Brown tried to take his gun. I'm sorry, but if I go for a cop's gun, I have to deal with the consequences of those actions.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So, you have gotten into brawls with LE and been raided. SO basically, you are a criminal.

Yeah, no wonder you have an issue with LE.

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: luthier


So tell me this brown was reaching for his gun when he was running away and shot in the back? How was the officer fearing for his life if brown was running away?

thats not the way it happened
you must have missed the facts that have been presented on every page of this thread

I see no facts on this thread nor am i niave enough to think i know them. I wasnt in the jury and i wouldnt trust the prosecusion or defense to provide them. My point is it wouldnt have mattered if he was shot while a block away or on his knees. The police have qualified immunity unless they are repeat offenders or there is overwhelming evidence (which almost never exists).
Again this isnt about brown or thugs or evidence or innocence. Cops have immunity. Look up law or take some classes trials for police first time offenders always have the same outcome.

originally posted by: caladonea
I think Michaels parent are right...we need to make changes in the laws...and that every policeman in every city should have to wear a camera.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. If a body cam were in place on Wilson there would be no rioting or looting, I believe. The facts would be clearly visible and this would be a cut and dry case.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: nullafides

Wilson followed the escalation of force.

Again, don't want to be shot??? Don't attack someone.

Again, I agree. Don't want the consequences, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Followed the escalation of force? In what reality is responding to physical attacks, unarmed, qualify deadly force?

Now, you're going to say that unarmed attacks (even without using physical objects to make the attack more effective) can be deadly. I agree.

But appropriate escalation? No. The officer didn't have a taser, but he had pepper spray. A can of that in the face will make the biggest man cry like a baby.

originally posted by: nullafides
CNN

Interesting point just made.

Often prosecutors will find they don't believe they have enough evidence to press official charges, so they take it to a Grand Jury.

I find that rather telling.

Correct.
A judge is less apt to throw a case out of court if a Grand Jury has found that charges should be filed. They give the case merit.
If the GJ finds no merit, chances are that there are none.

a reply to: nullafides

We got a biter. You got an issue with the state winning over a case that the victim's family was not going to win to begin with????

Justice doesn't swing the way people want it to and in most cases is the right way anyways because the people have no idea about how true justice works.

If a mugger has a weapon, do you seek the person out? No, you do not. If a police officer has a weapon, do you seek out issues because you have authority problems? NOOOOOO!!! Why is that a hard concept to understand??? Do we need to implement in the United States a mandatory service requirement to the military, so some of you will actually grow a sense of respecting authority???

That is the issue with 90% world today; everyone wants their way and nothing else. Well, I got news; you are blimp on the radar that can't even get picked up. You will never do anything grand with your life and you will die a person that no one remembers. You have to be a complete moron and challenge a police officer, lie about murdering someone, assault a woman or attack someone in power. Forgive me for not wanting my legacy to carry on and would rather die without my name being known than all of that. No one should want that...and no one should support that. You encourage people like the Sandy Hook shooter because it tells them they have a voice to do what they want. Having a voice is an illusion in a sense because if we gave people the power to voice things, we would have a Ferguson more often. WHO WANTS THAT??? No one does. Innocent people are losing their business, houses, cars and their life. YOU YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU PEOPLE WANT THAT????

GET OUT! GET OUT! Get out of America and go live in the Middle East where you mean nothing more than the ground you stand on. We do not want you here.

It is pathetic how American carry themselves now. We were once a great nation of people who came together and supported one another but now, now it has turned to violence to getting a point across. That is wrong and immoral and the government should take arms up against the people in Ferguson before a woman and child get caught in the middle of these riots.

a reply to: nullafides

You'd be surprised how ineffective pepper spray is in the face of a man fueled by adrenaline and anger.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So, you have gotten into brawls with LE and been raided. SO basically, you are a criminal.

Yeah, no wonder you have an issue with LE.

Name calling? Check.

Coming to a conclusion in your own mind due to non understanding of the individual or the situation they faced?

CHECK.