Pharrell Williams under fire over Michael Brown comments

a reply to: Greven
o
Oops sorry, that was another poster. My mistake! Anyway Greven, I assume you were addressing my question to said poster who said Wilson would have had plenty of time to smear Brown's blood, but if it came from the short range shooting he wouldn't have had to smear blood, now would he? That means it came from the initial gun grab in the car before Brown ran away.
Which do you want it to be, in the car before Brown ran while he was grabbing the gun, or after he ran?

i knew i liked that dude for a reason. wise, talented, and isnt afraid to take reality for what it is.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I have little reason to presume Wilson grabbed Brown while he lay dead in the street and smeared blood all over his gun. He testified that there was, however, blood on his hands - blood that must have come from Brown as Wilson wasn't found to have been cut and no pictures document a bloody nose or anything.

Wilson definitely touched his gun with his hands, and definitely had blood on his hands, so that could well be where the DNA came from. Or it could be that Brown grabbed Wilson's gun before or after being struck. It's just a bit less definitive since we know Wilson likely smeared blood onto the gun or got the blood from touching the gun.

a reply to: Greven

have little reason to presume Wilson grabbed Brown while he lay dead in the street and smeared blood all over his gun.

Well somebody else did apparently, or I would never have responded in this manner.....I think it is unthinkable that people here are painting Wilson in this fashion...is it because they heard Brown's mother suggesting that he just wanted to go out and kill somebody that night? The selfishness and irresponsibility in this case is astonishing.

we know Wilson likely smeared blood onto the gun or got the blood from touching the gun.

See, you are saying the same thing, only you seem to be coming more from a point of it happening just by the struggle and not having intended to do it and then tagging his own gun so no one would know he did it on purpose. See the difference?
The other person suggested that he tagged his own gun and submitted it into evidence, thus giving himself time to smear the gun with blood. Do you understand where I'm coming from now? He likely didn't need to go to all that trouble.
People are acting like it was Wilson the criminal when he was just a cop in the wrong time at the right place. I have no doubt that Brown would have bullied him as Wilson said, just from the store video. Do you really, or are you just scraping around for any way to make it about a bad cop and innocent "child"?
And when it's all said and done, the parents, relatives, attorneys and various other civil rights activists, councilwomen, media, and even possibly the governor(for his role in holding back the national guard so inexplicably) have all played a part in promoting more racism and riots and division. Karma will have it's day no matter who was right or wrong, as the Lord says "Vengeance is mine" Deuteronomy 32:35

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Personally, I'm just trying to figure out what happened. Based on what I know from the grand jury evidence, I think he should have been indicted on involuntary manslaughter. The two prosecutors handling the grand jury bear the blame for that not happening. Wilson likely would not have been convicted, but we would have better cross examination and determination of facts.

There are inconsistencies in his story with other witness testimony and crime scene information, and that should have been enough for an indictment under normal circumstances.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Plenty of time to smear Brown's blood on the gun and inside the police car.

Really, where would that blood have come from?

Wilson washed blood evidence off his hands, in violation of protocol. His gun was never checked for finger prints. Wilson bagged and tagged his own gun, hours after the shooting.

Forensics would likely have been able to tell the difference between a finger print and blood. People here are working O/T trying to find any angle with the evidence.

Too bad that they screwed up the forensic evidence so badly, and now we'll never know.

The jury had hours and hours to pore over the evidence and discuss amongst themselves. 12 of them. Even the lawyers and such are looking at civil rights and not forensic evidence for their civil case.

Too bad that the prosecutors abused their power and didn't properly use the Grand Jury procedure.

Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury

a reply to: windword

Wilson washed blood evidence off his hands, in violation of protocol. His gun was never checked for finger prints. Wilson bagged and tagged his own gun, hours after the shooting.

Yes. But is there any question about who fired the weapon?

Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury

Scalia was not commenting on this case, his comment was about a 1992 case. And he was wrong.

(a) When a criminal charge against a person is being or is about to be or has been submitted to a grand jury, such person has a right to appear before such grand jury as a witness in his own behalf if, prior to the filing of any indictment or any direction to file a prosecutor's information in the matter, he serves upon the district attorney of the county a written notice making such request and stating an address to which communications may be sent.

codes.lp.findlaw.com...

Maybe if they show more black celebrities not blaming race then others will do the same. I don't think the video is legit, but if it is, he's right. And the cops can talk to you however they want really, and you should comply. But none of this should lead to a killing. I keep trying to steer away from this subject but it's like OCD

a reply to: Phage

I don't know. I'm not a legal scholar. From the article:

Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
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. 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.

As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.

Sounds pretty bass ackwards to me......

There was a whole to do, all over the media, about how the prosecutor messed up the grand jury process, how messed up the preservation of and the presentation of evidence forensic evidence was, etc. I figure that Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice might have the final word on the process and its controversy.

However, this wouldn't be the first time that Scalia was wrong, in my opinion.

a reply to: windword

Sounds pretty bass ackwards to me......

Sounds like what a grand jury is supposed to do. Determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges. To determine if there is probable cause that Wilson acted outside the law and that his use of deadly force was not called for. They determined that there was not such evidence.

I figure that Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice might have the final word on the process and its controversy.

Once again, Scalia's comment was not about this case, and he was wrong about the case he was talking about.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: windword

Sounds pretty bass ackwards to me......

Sounds like what a grand jury is supposed to do. Determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges. To determine if there is probable cause. They determined that there was not.

I figure that Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice might have the final word on the process and its controversy.

Once again, Scalia's comment was not about this case, and he was wrong about the case he was talking about.

You need 9 to complete the vote. They just so happen to have 9 white jurors. You know damn well that isn't right.

a reply to: 3u40r15m

You need 9 to complete the vote. They just so happen to have 9 white jurors. You know damn well that isn't right.

So you assume racist intent? You assume the vote was 9 to 3? You assume all the whites voted against the indictment? You assume all the blacks voted for? You assume that if it had gone to trial it would have been different?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3u40r15m

You need 9 to complete the vote. They just so happen to have 9 white jurors. You know damn well that isn't right.

So you assume racist intent? You assume the vote was 9 to 3? You assume all the whites voted against the indictment? You assume all the blacks voted for? You assume that if it had gone to trial it would have been different?

That is correct. Just like the zimmerman jury, mostly all white and he was set loose. Don't you think the outcome would have been different had it been 9 black and 3 white? I do!

It's actually the other way around. A mere 4 grand jury members could have voted not to indict to achieve this result. The results are secret so we don't know.

There does not need to be 9 who voted not to indict - only a minimum of 4. In a grand jury in this jurisdiction, 9 or more of the 12 members must vote to indict for there to be an indictment. It's a threshold thing; at least 75%? Indictment. Else no indictment. 0 votes to indict, 1 vote to indict, 2 votes to indict, 3 votes to indict, 4 votes to indict, 5 votes to indict, 6 votes to indict, 7 votes to indict, 8 votes to indict - these are all the same. The result would be no indictment.

I won't believe any comments from celebrities until we've heard what Bono has to say.


Really???


# goes down that's ripe with room for social commentary and the media picks up on what some musician/artist says? WTH!

a reply to: 3u40r15m

That is correct. Just like the zimmerman jury, mostly all white and he was set loose. Don't you think the outcome would have been different had it been 9 black and 3 white? I do!

Hard to do with 6 jurors. And I guess you know it was a hung jury. Or do you?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

PHARRELL Williams is under fire over comments he made in an interview about the shooting death of 18-year-old African American Michael Brown by a white police officer,, describing the teenager’s behaviour leading up to his killing as “bully-ish”.

Before he was shot dead on August 9, Brown was caught on surveillance camera stealing a few cigarillos from a convenience store in Ferguson, Missouri, and intimidating the shop owner.

“It looked very bully-ish; that in itself I had a problem with,” Williams told Ebonymagazine. “Not with the kid, but with whatever happened in his life for him to arrive at a place where that behaviour is OK. Why aren’t we talking about that?”

“The boy was walking in the middle of the street when the police supposedly told him to ‘get the f*** on the sidewalk’. If you don’t listen to that, after just having pushed a store owner, you’re asking for trouble,” he added.

Link

What exactly did Williams say that was inaccurate or wrong? Why are his comments about the shooting, and the Bill Cosby issue and black culture taken so out of context by the media?

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey last year, Williams angered some when he said “the new black doesn’t blame others races for our issues”.

He speaks truth and the media does not like it!

The problem I see is that Pharrell was not privy to the evidence, but is merely stating an uninformed opinion based upon the circus played out in the media. I'm not a big fan of pronouncing judgement upon people based upon media reports.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I never liked Pharrell, I'm starting to now though. He spoke his mind, he spoke the truth. But the media has totally manipulated people's minds on the subject that anything negative said (even IF it's the truth) is looked upon negatively.

Michael Brown was a criminal, deal with it people. The cop is the victim, as is the store owner who was robbed by the criminal Brown and again by protestors. The whole thing is like a horror movie where the bad guys win.

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I never liked Pharrell, I'm starting to now though. He spoke his mind, he spoke the truth.

Can you send me a link to the complete evidence, so I can know the truth too? You can't and neither could Pharrell know the truth. It's a shame this didn't go to a trial because we'll never know the truth. It leaves doubt over Brown and the officer.

Aligning your positive feelings toward someone merely because you agree with them is not a replacement for facts or truth.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

It's a shame this didn't go to a trial because we'll never know the truth.

Why not? What evidence against Wilson would have been presented which was not presented to the grand jury? Where would it have come from? Who would have presented it?

Here you go. The documents can be found here.
www.npr.org...