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

I'm convinced that stories like this are toxic not only for the world, but for sites like ATS too... Stories like this just create division throughout. I see it on my Facebook news feeds, Twitter, ATS and many other places... Just look at what this death of a thug has done to us all? We are all friends on here when we are talking aliens or a story from Fragile Earth Forums (just an example), but look how quickly everything disappears when a story like this hits the site... People being called racists for having a view that doesn't line up with theirs, name calling, etc... Just shaking my head at what this story has done to this country...

originally posted by: Lynk3
a reply to: LDragonFire



That's why white people STILL make up the HIGHEST percentage of incarcerated citizens.

??????????????

"According to the BJS non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison and jail population in 2009, with whites 34.2%, and Hispanics 20.6%. The incarceration rate of black males was over 6 times higher than that of white males, with a rate of 4,749 per 100,000 US residents".
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: AnonyMason


That being said, the cops and the national guard were there well before any of the looting or vandalism started. Heavily militarized police don't serve to cause anything but more harm to an already volitile situation.

.

sorry but i dont see your point.
they were there before all that started, this time
maybe, just maybe they were there early because of what happened last time

you think? kinda makes sense dont it?

the police chief said it was worse this time around...somehow, i think the city had a feeling it was goingto play out like this...they were right.
just like all the people here that were calling it....myself and loads others said it would happen...we were called racists and all sorts of other things and sure enough, it happened.

better for them to be there early on i say.

look how bad it was with with that presence. would have been much worse without it.

in the end, the protestors brought it on themselves...yes, the law was there the entire time...i was watching the live feed a few hours before the decision...the cops were not interfering at all. protestors were marching in the middle of the street. they were blocking the streets in all directions(at times). they were preventing cars from passing. they were shouting and even threw a few things at the cops directly in front of the station..
the cops did nothing about it.

then the decision came down and mama/papa brown didnt hear what they wanted so papa brown told the crowd to burn it down. about 10-15 minutes later that cop car was on fire and it had all started.

the protestors started the fiasco....

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I have one point of contention to your analogy between Japanese and US police. In the US, if you give attitude to a policeperson you will get that same attitude back. The problem is that a certain percentage of the population has gotten to the point where they are always antagonistic to the police. That attitude can be seen in everything they do. This is a small percentage of the population but seems to be growing. These people live off of bravado without knowing the consequences of such action. You live by the sword you will probably die by that same sword.

I totally agree. From my interactions with the Japanese police, and from observing interactions, I can say with relative certainty that police officials here are treated with respect and dignity. Nobody think they're there just to stomp on your rights, but to help protect people and enforce the law. It's really quite amazing, having grown up in the US with so many people distrusting the police, to live here where they are almost quite literally the old 1950's stereotypical vision of the friendly neighborhood officer who's all smiles and hugs children, was quite the culture shock.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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

originally posted by: Truthbadger
Regardless of what brown did, he was shot in the back running away.

That is incorrect.

Brown was shot in the hand when he reached into the police car to assault the officer and try to take his gun. Brown then briefly ran away and the officer gave chase. Brown turned around and then ran back towards the officer 'football player style with his head down'. The officer feared for his life and shot brown. The 'kill shot' was either the one in the forehead or the one that went in through the top of the head.

Brown was over six feet tall and over 250 pounds. He was a full grown man and extremely angry and threatening. The evidence all supports the police version of events. There is forensic evidence as well as an audio recording of the gunshots. Most of the supposed 'eyewitness' testimony was discredited and proven to be lies. The few eyewitness testimonies that turned out to be credible matched the forensics and they stated that Brown ran towards the cop 'football player style'.

Bottom line - Brown was a thief and a thug who attacked a cop, and the cop did the correct thing by shooting Brown.

The protesters don't care about the facts. They just want their stolen sneakers and stolen booze from the looted liquor store, and they just want to burn down the business' of innocent people and rule by mob mentality. Idiots.

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

I'm singling out you for no reason other than your statements. So, these are your facts?

Curious. What scenario does Darren Wilson propose happened?

Wilson testified before the grand jury, according to transcripts released Monday night, that before he fired, the teenager slammed the door of his police cruiser on him, prompting him to draw his gun. "I said, 'Get back or I'm going to shoot you,' " Wilson testified.” He immediately grabs my gun and says, 'You are too much of a pu--y to shoot me.'"

Remember, this is Wilson's account. So Wilson has now drawn his gun and threatened to shoot Brown.

Wilson testified that Brown punched him in the head after the door-slam, causing him to fear for his life. The teen took off after the first two shots but then stopped, the officer said.

The teen wasn't in fear for his life, but the man with the gun already drawn who had threatened to shoot the teen was?
Oh, and stop claiming Brown punched out Wilson because that did not happen, like you did here:

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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

originally posted by: caprellid
Michael Brown was being confronted for the High Crime of jaywalking.

AND then Brown reached into the police car and punched out the cop and tried to steal his gun.

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

We should look at the first two shots a bit closer, hm?

The first two shots were fired when the officer was still sitting in his vehicle, leaving blood inside the car as well as on Wilson's pants.

"Mr. Brown's blood or DNA were found on the outside of the door," the prosecutor said.

That appeared to support Wilson's statement that Brown tried to strip him of his weapon during the altercation that followed the teen's alleged charging. Brown was 6-foot-4 and 292 pounds, and Wilson said he feared for his safety — yet the cop himself is an inch taller and 210 pounds.

Oh, and the 6'5" 210 pound trained police officer is afraid of the 6'4" 292 pound teen.

"His right (hand) goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me," Wilson told the jurors. "I tell, keep telling him to go to the ground. He doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot."

In Wilson’s account, Brown keeps charging at him as he fired: “At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him.”

Bizarre testimony aside, we know how many shots were fired from the previous audio recording. Wilson shot Brown 10 times in about six and a half seconds, following the first two shots that were not recorded:

Wilson told the panel that, with the charging Brown about eight to 10 feet away from him, he aimed a final shot at his head.

You'd almost think Brown was charging back at Wilson after running away... except...

Brown's body was found 153 feet away from the vehicle.

So now Wilson, after threatening and actually carrying out the threat to shoot Brown has chased him at least 143 feet, where Brown suddenly becomes an aggressor, after getting shot and running far away. It boggles the mind.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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

originally posted by: MrPlow
the Grand Jury was out of line by making a determination of guilt or innocence.

They didn't make a determination of guilt or innocence.
They said there wasn't enough evidence to go to trial with.
They said there wasn't.
Where did you read that they determined 'guilt or innocence'?
That's not in their sandbox.

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

Given their instructions, they probably couldn't have convicted someone blatantly murdering another on video...

Ms. Alizadeh: Probable cause to believe that he committed the offense, which means that he met all elements of that offense. You remember that from your grand jury days. And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. And only if you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence. So any other questions about the law?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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

a reply to: Grambler
And the blood evidence, the dna evidence and the bullet evidence confirms the officers account.

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

By "confirms" you mean "doesn't contradict." That doesn't mean the officer's account is a factual representation of what happened.

www.cnn.com...

Wilson had never used his weapon on duty before the shooting Officer Darren Wilson Officer Darren Wilson Wilson had never fired his gun on duty before shooting Michael Brown, he told the grand jury. Asked if he had ever used excessive force before, he replied: "I've never used my weapon before." Wilson testified the area of the shooting was 'hostile' Wilson called the area where Brown was shot a "hostile environment." "There's a lot of gangs that reside or associate with that area. There's a lot of violence in that area, there's a lot of gun activity, drug activity, it is just not a very well-liked community. That community doesn't like the police." What's next for Officer Wilson? Grand jury does not indict Darren Wilson Obama speaks as smoke fills the streets Darren Wilson friend speaks to CNN Wilson said he hoped to arrest Brown Wilson told the grand jury his original goal was to arrest Brown, after identifying him as a possible suspect in a shop theft. "My main goal was to keep eyes on him and just to keep him contained until I had people coming there," he testified. "I knew I had already called for backup and I knew they were already in the area for the stealing that was originally reported. So I thought if I can buy 30 seconds of time, that was my original goal when I tried to get him to come to the car. If I could buy 30 seconds of time, someone else will be here, we can make the arrest, nothing happens, we are all good. And it didn't happen that way." Wilson was carrying mace, not a stun gun Wilson told the grand jury he didn't normally carry a stun gun. "We only have a select amount. Usually there is one available, but I usually elect not to carry one. It is not the most comfortable thing. They are very large. I don't have a lot of room in the front for it to be positioned," he told the grand jury. The officer testified he was carrying mace when he encountered Brown. Wilson said he feared Brown could beat him to death Officer Wilson told the grand jury that Brown punched him in the face when the officer drove back to him. Wilson said he tried to get out of his cruiser but Brown slammed the door shut twice and hit him with his fist. "I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse ... I've already taken two to the face and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right," Wilson said.

pretty good summary from cnn of the document dump. it also appears Wilson fired 12 times total not 6 as i had originally heard and his testimony on how brown did not stop despite being shot is probably one of the reasons he was not indicted and according to his testimony brown refused to lay down when commanded by the officer and kept coming at him

also the photographer did not feel the need to take photos as it seemed pretty self explanatory as to what had occurred(and his or her battery had died the tech is not named)
us.cnn.com...

More investigations Wilson is still the subject of an internal investigation by the Ferguson Police Department over what happened on August 9, the day he fatally shot unarmed teenager Michael Brown. And the U.S. Justice Department is conducting two civil rights investigations: one into whether Wilson, who is white, violated Brown's civil rights, and the other into the police department's overall track record with minorities. O'Mara says he believes the federal investigation into Wilson's actions will lose steam. "A federal investigation for civil rights violation is very difficult to accomplish," he said. "You really have to show that the person acted with the intent to take away your civil rights, meaning I did what I did because you're black. That's a protected class." The decision to open a federal probe of the Ferguson shooting was largely political, he said. Since the grand jury declined to indict Wilson, one could conclude that the shooting was justified based upon Wilson's and Brown's actions. "That's more evidence that he acted in self-defense," O'Mara said. 'More stringent' federal probe possible Callan said the lack of an indictment could push the federal government to "open a much more stringent and powerful investigation" of Brown's shooting. "Now they know he's not going to be prosecuted on a state level, and the feds have a right to do a completely independent investigation, and they're not bound in any way by grand jury determination," he said. Whether the Justice Department brings charges, however, is another story. "As a general rule, the feds really only get involved when they have a really strong case." Callan said. "I wouldn't imagine they're going to swoop in on this one too quickly."

so other charges not likely to stick as well ,and with general civil immunity for police officers its not likely any of the other charges will stick and his acquittal will work in his favor on the off chance they do go forward

originally posted by: lynn112
I watched the press conference live last night and one thing stuck out to me. It was that Brown's blood was found 25 feet beyond his body, backing up the witnesses who stated that Brown was charging at Wilson.

I also noticed that it was said that Wilson did know about the strong-armed robbery and therefore Brown was technically armed. (strong-armed means using your body as a weapon)

I just think my biggest issue is that many have formed an opinion on this case based solely on what the media has released, some of which was later proven not true. (even the celebrities are getting in on this)

I also take issue with the rioting and looting. Protest freely, make your voice be heard, it is the American way, but that doesn't give you the right to destroy others property and steal. If anything, it makes the whole situation worse.

Sorry, but IMHO you are REALLY reaching here. Also, there are many, many ways that Brown's blood could have ended up "25 feet away" from his body. Just because it was that far away doesn't mean that it supports diddly squat.

Unless you, yourself, were on the GJ, an investigator with the Ferguson or STLSO, you know just as much as the rest of us.

a reply to: lovebeck

All looters and Arsonists need to be shot on sight. That will stop this real quick.

originally posted by: joyride0187
a reply to: lovebeck

All looters and Arsonists need to be shot on sight. That will stop this real quick.

Some people are just sick.
Now you want to murder people stealing?
People can try and justify the shooting of this guy all days, that's one thing - but you're now advocating the murder of thieves - literally the death penalty for stealing?

I know there will be a bunch of posters backing your idea but it's frankly insane and sick.

a reply to: joyride0187

www.libertynews.com/2014/11/businessmen-armed-with-ar-15-rifles-saved-ferguson-strip-mall-from-protester-looting/ well they weren't exactly shooting on site but they saved their businesses by being armed and as far as i could tell from article they did not have to shoot any one just stand around

a reply to: stargatetravels

from what i can tell the only time looters have legally been "shot on site" was during katrina and that was only under the martial law decree so i think martial law has to be declared to shoot looters on site and as far a i can tell that only applied to police not citizens

www.propublica.org...

www.hg.org... site with some basic info on general legalities during riots/ looting

In most instances, the best defense against looters, and the one that is most legal, is to plan ahead. Bars or storm shutters on windows and reinforced doors are more likely to offer some level of protection against looters without exposing you to unreasonable harm of injury, death, or legal liability. If possible, it may be wise to get out of the path of looters all together and return only after order has been restored. Take photographs of everything before you go, if you have time, to document its condition before you left and to show the damage done by looters after you return to make your insurance claims.

i think other laws like castle doctrine or stand your ground laws may further compound issues but this is a lawyers take on the matter ^

blogs.findlaw.com... far more comprehensive link with too much detail to post a snippet of but texas for example allows defense of property as a legit claim for self defense so double check state laws and the article also advises against booby traps of any kind(duh)

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: joyride0187

a reply to: lovebeck



All looters and Arsonists need to be shot on sight. That will stop this real quick.

Some people are just sick.

Now you want to murder people stealing?

People can try and justify the shooting of this guy all days, that's one thing - but you're now advocating the murder of thieves - literally the death penalty for stealing?



I know there will be a bunch of posters backing your idea but it's frankly insane and sick.

I don't really have an ounce of mercy for looters, do you? Ask them nicely to cease and disperse. Then a warning that deadly force is about to be used. Then....blammo ! You have to put these looters down, no question. They are breaking the law and stealing somebody else's property. It's a mob mentality. You have to start cutting them down as lawlessness breaks out, otherwise you're allowing criminals to run the city. A show of deadly force is sometimes needed to get a mob's attention.

www.washingtonpost.com... one last link summarizing why their was no indictment

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Oh for sure, if you're in the store/building and people are smashing their way in to loot, then yeah - a warning and then you have a right to defend your self and property.
But just to go around and shoot people looting is barbaric.
One is significantly different from the other.

a reply to: stargatetravels

yeah and even that is a grey area as far as i can see in recent times the only time the order was issued to shoot looters on site was given to police dealing with the Katrina situation and generaly out side of texas at least it seems that its not a common or legal act,as to put it bluntly firing randomly into a crowd of looters rarely goes well (or any crowd at all) and that the more effective tactic is one of deterrence(like the korean neighborhoods during rodney king riots) they didnt need to shoot any one because there were 10-20 armed men on each roof of the business wearing military/police uniforms and toting ar's and hunting rifles

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: stargatetravels

yeah and even that is a grey area as far as i can see in recent times the only time the order was issued to shoot looters on site was given to police dealing with the Katrina situation and generaly out side of texas at least it seems that its not a common or legal act,as to put it bluntly firing randomly into a crowd of looters rarely goes well (or any crowd at all) and that the more effective tactic is one of deterrence(like the korean neighborhoods during rodney king riots) they didnt need to shoot any one because there were 10-20 armed men on each roof of the business wearing military/police uniforms and toting ar's and hunting rifles

Exactly it's a frankly disturbing suggestion to start firing into crowds of looters.
Just so much wrong with that suggestion.
But yes defending yourself or property I see no issue with.

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas

a reply to: stargatetravels



yeah and even that is a grey area as far as i can see in recent times the only time the order was issued to shoot looters on site was given to police dealing with the Katrina situation and generaly out side of texas at least it seems that its not a common or legal act,as to put it bluntly firing randomly into a crowd of looters rarely goes well (or any crowd at all) and that the more effective tactic is one of deterrence(like the korean neighborhoods during rodney king riots) they didnt need to shoot any one because there were 10-20 armed men on each roof of the business wearing military/police uniforms and toting ar's and hunting rifles

Exactly it's a frankly disturbing suggestion to start firing into crowds of looters.

Just so much wrong with that suggestion.

But yes defending yourself or property I see no issue with.

I'm not advocating randomly firing into crowds of looters because they're stealing. If that were the case, then the shooting of thieves or the death penalty for theft in normal situations would be acceptable as well. I don't think anyone here is advocating that.

However, in truly desperate situations where the infrastructure has completely broken down, I do believe a zero-tolerance approach to crime is appropriate. The authorities need to have complete control of the area. The area needs to be safe for the fire dept and rescue. Looters endanger lives by spreading law enforcement/rescue too thin.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

They did their best to maintain order, and made a few arrests, but it was clear they weren't wanted.

Actually, they made 80 arrests, and tended to the 25 fires which had been set. I'd say it was a pretty busy night.

Sams Meat Markter
K-mart
Quick Trip - Gas Station
AT and T mobile store Beauty Supply Store
Walgreens
Toys R Us
Dollar General
OReilly's
Little Ceasars
Reds BBQ
Dollar Tree
Advanced Auto Parts
T-Mobile
Public Library
Mobile Oil - gas station
Unidentified Tire retailer
Taco Bell
Save A Lot
Mcdonalds
Family Dollar
CVS
Storage Facility


Astonishing list of businesses burned down or robbed in the riots what did those folk do to deserve any of this

a reply to: douglas5

maybe the protestors 'perceived' all those places as oppressive...

seems like to a lot of people in this thread the only thing that really matters is what the protestors perceive.

maybe none of those places love the black people....

you know