Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
156 user(s) are online (134 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 156

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9 »


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
The reason those procedures exist is for establishing certain elements of the crime.

That is patently false which, in turn, negates everything you've written past it.

Those procedures exist because in the immediate aftermath of what occurred, nobody knows what happened. Nobody showing up at the scene should automatically take the word of the policeman and just cease all procedures.

I'm rather befuddled why you would just throw out standard procedure (as pointed out by the FBI and DOJ) simply because the officer says "It's a good shooting."

Does a cop go home after a car accident if he just says "it wasn't my fault?" Think back to the accident where the officer killed someone in JC. Now go back and rethink your entire argument.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
And no, he shouldn't have been indicted, because even the low probable cause standard wasn't met. It was a stupid case and no one involved seriously thought that DW was guilty of a crime, including the prosecutor. And let me tell you, when you're a lawyer and you're watching this crap you get a headache because you know that this is politics and not the criminal justice system.

Why shouldn't he have been indicted? The prosecutor had enough evidence to do so. He could have selected the evidence that made the case (as Scalia has argued) and gone ahead with it. Instead, he chose not to. Instead, the guy has a history of being cop friendly (his dad is one) and will never prosecute them.

That is another factor that goes towards the poor decisions in this case. Why use a guy with a clear bias?

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The false meme of 'hands up, don't shoot' has now turned to 'pants up, don't loot'. Everyone but those idiots on the St. Louis Rams seems to get it now.


Resized Image


May or may not have charged Wilson. May or may not have had his hands up.


The numbers there don't seem to comport with the chart you posted below: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3Z0jWgCcAAxnjK.jpg#twimg (though, they appear to modify the questions slightly. The original PBS chart is more meaningful.)

But yes, testimony was massively differing. Sufficiently differing that it is reasonable for a jury to conclude that no probable cause existed for charging a cop with killing MB under the circumstances presented.

I don?t disagree. However, I must ask, why would they use so many witnesses instead of just selecting the ones that fit the narrative?

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
DA, you really shouldn't waste your time, just look at my posts. Pebble is a grade A dunce. He/she knows just enough to reiterate partisan talking points to seem somewhat intelligent, but lacks the brainpower to understand them.

Is this where I get to use your term of ?butt hurt? from having me point out that your claims here are wrong every time you make them??

When you?ve no evidence to back up your claims (the gun was prevented from going off by Brown!) then I guess the next best thing is to go after the person constantly proving you wrong?

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, the pie chart is stupid. I could claim to have been a witness. Thousands of people are rioting because Brown said 'Don't shoot' with his hands in the air.

Except three autopsies, one on behalf of his family, said that wasn't true.

Forensics are the key, not what someone with an agenda claims they saw. Because it's been proved they didn't see what they said they saw.

How many of those witnesses said he was shot from behind? Take them off he list. How many said he had his hands in the air? Take them off the list.

Now redo the numbers.

First, thousands of people are rioting because they serve no benefit to society. They aren?t rioting because a kid got shot. They are rioting due to any excuse. There are protestors arguing about ?don?t shoot? but that is neither here nor there.

I also pointed out where the incongruences were. The reality is that the police botched their investigation into the shooting. If they went through proper procedure there would be far less argument over this case. If they were able to take fingerprints off of the gun and find Brown?s, there would be less arguments over the case.

Lastly, you say that these witnesses should be taken off the list. How about Officer Wilson? It was determined by many that he lied on the stand. Should we discount him as well?

The one fact that has been established over and over again is that the Ferguson Police botched the investigation. In doing so, the full facts about what occurred that day will never come out. If the officer acted properly, then so be it. For now, we really don?t know and because of that, everyone should be frustrated.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 23:28
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2022/2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4192
Offline
Our society is a times fcked - we showed little emotion when OJ Simpson was found not guilty, yet when a jury of our peers determined this officer wasn't guilty, we voice our injustice !

Posted on: 2014/12/1 23:24
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5356
Offline
JERSEY CITY ? About 100 New Jersey City University students gathered for a rally in support of slain Ferguson, Mo., teen Michael Brown this afternoon, joining thousands nationwide who walked out of work and school to protest a grand jury's decision not to indict the officer who killed Brown four months ago.
Resized Image


Resized Image

The students lay on the ground in front of NJCU's library at 1 p.m. for four and a half minutes, a "die in" commemorating the four and a half hours Brown lay on the street after the officer, Darren Wilson, shot and killed him on Aug. 9. The fatal shooting of a black teen by a white cop led to months of unrest in Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb, that re-ignited last week when authorities announced that Wilson would face no charges.

More

Posted on: 2014/12/1 23:16
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
All of your post requires that the police viewed this as a probable crime scene. They did not. Therein lies the discrepancy between what was expected and what occurred. The reason many of those items are taken is because it is necessary to establish each element of the crime and to establish facts such as that DW shot and killed MB. That's why they need the gun, that's why they need the blood off his hands. Forensics is run on the gun and the bullets and DNA testing is done on the blood to determine whose blood it was. These are facts that were never in contention. Therefore, there was no prejudicial effect from these not occurring. So what exactly is your problem? Are you claiming that DW wasn't indicted because we weren't sure if he fired the weapon killing MB? Because that (or something similar) is what you would need to claim for any of this to matter.

EDIT: Just one more thing to add. The only reason there were trials in this case and with George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin is because of political pressure coming from the very top. Neither of these people should have or would have seen the inside of a courtroom but for this. And that should terrify everyone.

You are incorrect and have clearly not read the article. The article specifically states that in any shooting, regardless of criminality, the standard procedure is to acquire the gun. I don't know why you are willfully reading what is so very plainly written.

My issue is simple, you have a very obvious situation in Ferguson (as well as many locations in the USA) between minorities and police. The best course of action would have been to follow the rules and procedures that have been in place for a significant time now. Trust is earned and while there would have been people which would have gone conspiracy theory with it still (heck their are 9/11 truthers out there), when your actions are questionable and the decisions you make create an air of a a cover-up, people will question what occurred.

As for the indictment... I believe the officer would have gotten away with the shooting due to all I've heard on Missouri's laws. However, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't have been indicted. His story does not hold up to all of the other accounts.


And you are still not getting it. The reason those procedures exist is for establishing certain elements of the crime. The facts they would establish ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. Do you understand this? If the DW's defense was "I wasn't even there and I certainly didn't fire the gun that killed MB" then you're right, that would have become a really serious problem. It would still be overcome since everyone agreed that DW shot the gun that killed MB, but the authorities would still admittedly look ridiculous. But that didn't happen. So once again, I'm getting back to the fact that this made absolutely zero impact on anything. Reread that. There is zero chance that would have resulted in his indictment because it would have demonstrated facts already in the record by DW's own admission and witness testimony.

And no, he shouldn't have been indicted, because even the low probable cause standard wasn't met. It was a stupid case and no one involved seriously thought that DW was guilty of a crime, including the prosecutor. And let me tell you, when you're a lawyer and you're watching this crap you get a headache because you know that this is politics and not the criminal justice system.


DA, you really shouldn't waste your time, just look at my posts. Pebble is a grade A dunce. He/she knows just enough to reiterate partisan talking points to seem somewhat intelligent, but lacks the brainpower to understand them.

Regarding the witnesses, it's worth noting that all who testified in favor of Wilson told a nearly identical story (Brown attacked Wilson and was charging at him when killed). Whereas the witnesses against Wilson all told very different stories (Brown shot in the back, Brown was standing still surrendering when shot, etc). And that's not even discussing the fact that many witnesses against Wilson later admitted lying and that they didn't witness the events, while this is not true for any witnesses supporting him.

This was clearly a non indictable case given the physical evidence; a racist mob is the only reason one was convened to begin with.


Agreed. Speaking of racist people, anyone want to discuss the following?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic ... ts-Bosnian-community.html


Posted on: 2014/12/1 21:28
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Pebble, the pie chart is stupid. I could claim to have been a witness. Thousands of people are rioting because Brown said 'Don't shoot' with his hands in the air.

Except three autopsies, one on behalf of his family, said that wasn't true.

Forensics are the key, not what someone with an agenda claims they saw. Because it's been proved they didn't see what they said they saw.

How many of those witnesses said he was shot from behind? Take them off he list. How many said he had his hands in the air? Take them off the list.

Now redo the numbers.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 21:28
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
All of your post requires that the police viewed this as a probable crime scene. They did not. Therein lies the discrepancy between what was expected and what occurred. The reason many of those items are taken is because it is necessary to establish each element of the crime and to establish facts such as that DW shot and killed MB. That's why they need the gun, that's why they need the blood off his hands. Forensics is run on the gun and the bullets and DNA testing is done on the blood to determine whose blood it was. These are facts that were never in contention. Therefore, there was no prejudicial effect from these not occurring. So what exactly is your problem? Are you claiming that DW wasn't indicted because we weren't sure if he fired the weapon killing MB? Because that (or something similar) is what you would need to claim for any of this to matter.

EDIT: Just one more thing to add. The only reason there were trials in this case and with George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin is because of political pressure coming from the very top. Neither of these people should have or would have seen the inside of a courtroom but for this. And that should terrify everyone.

You are incorrect and have clearly not read the article. The article specifically states that in any shooting, regardless of criminality, the standard procedure is to acquire the gun. I don't know why you are willfully reading what is so very plainly written.

My issue is simple, you have a very obvious situation in Ferguson (as well as many locations in the USA) between minorities and police. The best course of action would have been to follow the rules and procedures that have been in place for a significant time now. Trust is earned and while there would have been people which would have gone conspiracy theory with it still (heck their are 9/11 truthers out there), when your actions are questionable and the decisions you make create an air of a a cover-up, people will question what occurred.

As for the indictment... I believe the officer would have gotten away with the shooting due to all I've heard on Missouri's laws. However, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't have been indicted. His story does not hold up to all of the other accounts.


And you are still not getting it. The reason those procedures exist is for establishing certain elements of the crime. The facts they would establish ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. Do you understand this? If the DW's defense was "I wasn't even there and I certainly didn't fire the gun that killed MB" then you're right, that would have become a really serious problem. It would still be overcome since everyone agreed that DW shot the gun that killed MB, but the authorities would still admittedly look ridiculous. But that didn't happen. So once again, I'm getting back to the fact that this made absolutely zero impact on anything. Reread that. There is zero chance that would have resulted in his indictment because it would have demonstrated facts already in the record by DW's own admission and witness testimony.

And no, he shouldn't have been indicted, because even the low probable cause standard wasn't met. It was a stupid case and no one involved seriously thought that DW was guilty of a crime, including the prosecutor. And let me tell you, when you're a lawyer and you're watching this crap you get a headache because you know that this is politics and not the criminal justice system.


DA, you really shouldn't waste your time, just look at my posts. Pebble is a grade A dunce. He/she knows just enough to reiterate partisan talking points to seem somewhat intelligent, but lacks the brainpower to understand them.

Regarding the witnesses, it's worth noting that all who testified in favor of Wilson told a nearly identical story (Brown attacked Wilson and was charging at him when killed). Whereas the witnesses against Wilson all told very different stories (Brown shot in the back, Brown was standing still surrendering when shot, etc). And that's not even discussing the fact that many witnesses against Wilson later admitted lying and that they didn't witness the events, while this is not true for any witnesses supporting him.

This was clearly a non indictable case given the physical evidence; a racist mob is the only reason one was convened to begin with.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 21:22
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The false meme of 'hands up, don't shoot' has now turned to 'pants up, don't loot'. Everyone but those idiots on the St. Louis Rams seems to get it now.


Resized Image


May or may not have charged Wilson. May or may not have had his hands up.


The numbers there don't seem to comport with the chart you posted below: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3Z0jWgCcAAxnjK.jpg#twimg (though, they appear to modify the questions slightly. The original PBS chart is more meaningful.)

But yes, testimony was massively differing. Sufficiently differing that it is reasonable for a jury to conclude that no probable cause existed for charging a cop with killing MB under the circumstances presented.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 21:13
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
All of your post requires that the police viewed this as a probable crime scene. They did not. Therein lies the discrepancy between what was expected and what occurred. The reason many of those items are taken is because it is necessary to establish each element of the crime and to establish facts such as that DW shot and killed MB. That's why they need the gun, that's why they need the blood off his hands. Forensics is run on the gun and the bullets and DNA testing is done on the blood to determine whose blood it was. These are facts that were never in contention. Therefore, there was no prejudicial effect from these not occurring. So what exactly is your problem? Are you claiming that DW wasn't indicted because we weren't sure if he fired the weapon killing MB? Because that (or something similar) is what you would need to claim for any of this to matter.

EDIT: Just one more thing to add. The only reason there were trials in this case and with George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin is because of political pressure coming from the very top. Neither of these people should have or would have seen the inside of a courtroom but for this. And that should terrify everyone.

You are incorrect and have clearly not read the article. The article specifically states that in any shooting, regardless of criminality, the standard procedure is to acquire the gun. I don't know why you are willfully reading what is so very plainly written.

My issue is simple, you have a very obvious situation in Ferguson (as well as many locations in the USA) between minorities and police. The best course of action would have been to follow the rules and procedures that have been in place for a significant time now. Trust is earned and while there would have been people which would have gone conspiracy theory with it still (heck their are 9/11 truthers out there), when your actions are questionable and the decisions you make create an air of a a cover-up, people will question what occurred.

As for the indictment... I believe the officer would have gotten away with the shooting due to all I've heard on Missouri's laws. However, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't have been indicted. His story does not hold up to all of the other accounts.


And you are still not getting it. The reason those procedures exist is for establishing certain elements of the crime. The facts they would establish ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. Do you understand this? If the DW's defense was "I wasn't even there and I certainly didn't fire the gun that killed MB" then you're right, that would have become a really serious problem. It would still be overcome since everyone agreed that DW shot the gun that killed MB, but the authorities would still admittedly look ridiculous. But that didn't happen. So once again, I'm getting back to the fact that this made absolutely zero impact on anything. Reread that. There is zero chance that would have resulted in his indictment because it would have demonstrated facts already in the record by DW's own admission and witness testimony.

And no, he shouldn't have been indicted, because even the low probable cause standard wasn't met. It was a stupid case and no one involved seriously thought that DW was guilty of a crime, including the prosecutor. And let me tell you, when you're a lawyer and you're watching this crap you get a headache because you know that this is politics and not the criminal justice system.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 21:09
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The false meme of 'hands up, don't shoot' has now turned to 'pants up, don't loot'. Everyone but those idiots on the St. Louis Rams seems to get it now.


Resized Image


May or may not have charged Wilson. May or may not have had his hands up.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 20:59
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
All of your post requires that the police viewed this as a probable crime scene. They did not. Therein lies the discrepancy between what was expected and what occurred. The reason many of those items are taken is because it is necessary to establish each element of the crime and to establish facts such as that DW shot and killed MB. That's why they need the gun, that's why they need the blood off his hands. Forensics is run on the gun and the bullets and DNA testing is done on the blood to determine whose blood it was. These are facts that were never in contention. Therefore, there was no prejudicial effect from these not occurring. So what exactly is your problem? Are you claiming that DW wasn't indicted because we weren't sure if he fired the weapon killing MB? Because that (or something similar) is what you would need to claim for any of this to matter.

EDIT: Just one more thing to add. The only reason there were trials in this case and with George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin is because of political pressure coming from the very top. Neither of these people should have or would have seen the inside of a courtroom but for this. And that should terrify everyone.

You are incorrect and have clearly not read the article. The article specifically states that in any shooting, regardless of criminality, the standard procedure is to acquire the gun. I don't know why you are willfully reading what is so very plainly written.

My issue is simple, you have a very obvious situation in Ferguson (as well as many locations in the USA) between minorities and police. The best course of action would have been to follow the rules and procedures that have been in place for a significant time now. Trust is earned and while there would have been people which would have gone conspiracy theory with it still (heck their are 9/11 truthers out there), when your actions are questionable and the decisions you make create an air of a a cover-up, people will question what occurred.

As for the indictment... I believe the officer would have gotten away with the shooting due to all I've heard on Missouri's laws. However, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't have been indicted. His story does not hold up to all of the other accounts.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 20:55
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Actually, the police said Brown had, as a juvenile, not been convicted of a Class A or B felony. To me, that says he could have been convicted of lesser class felonies or misdemeanors, or had pending charges at the time of his death. In any case, the video evidence shows that he was a violent thug and criminal, minutes before he encountered Officer Wilson.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

What is this reply to, exactly? I don't think anyone here said he had a lengthy criminal record, though he did just violently attack someone on camera and rob a store like 15 minutes before the incident (so not sure your link is meaningful).

Posted on: 2014/12/1 20:50
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

What is this reply to, exactly? I don't think anyone here said he had a lengthy criminal record, though he did just violently attack someone on camera and rob a store like 15 minutes before the incident (so not sure your link is meaningful).

Posted on: 2014/12/1 20:44
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/8/15 21:22
Last Login :
2016/3/22 21:14
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 435
Offline

Posted on: 2014/12/1 20:36
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
The false meme of 'hands up, don't shoot' has now turned to 'pants up, don't loot'. Everyone but those idiots on the St. Louis Rams seems to get it now.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 20:01
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Your last post is the most information reference where Brown's hands could have been. However, Wilson outright states "I believe." He doesn't declare it a fact. He also points out that there were times he pulled the trigger in which Brown's hands were not on the gun.

I know you want to make Brown out to be the uber villain here, and he's certainly not one of the good guys, but why doesn't it bother you that the police took just about every wrong step out there in order to prevent the facts from coming out? Why were no fingerprints taken from the gun? Why was Wilson allowed to wash Brown's blood off his hands? Why was Wilson allowed to hold onto his gun after the shooting?


Wow, some horrible points here. Brown didn't need to freakin' keep his hands on the gun (or even touch the gun) to get shot. Being a huge guy trying to grab a police officer's gun absolutely should mean that you will be shot until you're no longer breathing. In what universe do you live that you think it should be otherwise?

The rest of your questions are irrelevant and (as usual) completely idiotic. He didn't have to actually reach the gun to get shot. Why wouldn't he have been allowed to wash MB's blood off? Whether he shot Brown was never in question. Why would an officer relinquish his gun after shooting a criminal?



I have no idea what most of your post is in reference to. Please quote the portion that I wrote saying it was OK to grab an officer's gun.

However, if you are asking about the gun, I'll let the Department of Justice and the FBI explain...
Washington Post: Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents

Quote:
In the critical first minutes after a shooting, investigators are trained to follow a time-tested process of protecting the scene to ensure that evidence is not compromised, according to the experts and documents. A shooting suspect ? even a police officer ? must be cordoned off in a controlled area and stripped of his clothing, his weapon secured by investigators, and must be escorted by officers if he leaves.

?An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong,? said David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St. Louis who is also a former police officer. ?The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.??


It is fun when you call my questions "idiotic" because that usually means you have no idea what you are talking about...
Quote:
A 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes, designed in conjunction with police departments across the country, addresses what experts said was perhaps the most serious breach of protocol after Brown was killed: Wilson washing the blood off his hands.

Then again, I'm sure the Justice Department is "idiotic."

I don't expect you, personally, to have answers to the questions posed. What I find sad is that nobody has answers to these questions, other than the Ferguson Police. If they had followed protocol, there would have been a lot fewer questions. There may have also been hard evidence to back up Wilson's claims.


All of your post requires that the police viewed this as a probable crime scene. They did not. Therein lies the discrepancy between what was expected and what occurred. The reason many of those items are taken is because it is necessary to establish each element of the crime and to establish facts such as that DW shot and killed MB. That's why they need the gun, that's why they need the blood off his hands. Forensics is run on the gun and the bullets and DNA testing is done on the blood to determine whose blood it was. These are facts that were never in contention. Therefore, there was no prejudicial effect from these not occurring. So what exactly is your problem? Are you claiming that DW wasn't indicted because we weren't sure if he fired the weapon killing MB? Because that (or something similar) is what you would need to claim for any of this to matter.

EDIT: Just one more thing to add. The only reason there were trials in this case and with George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin is because of political pressure coming from the very top. Neither of these people should have or would have seen the inside of a courtroom but for this. And that should terrify everyone.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 19:37

Edited by devilsadvocate on 2014/12/1 19:55:07
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Your last post is the most information reference where Brown's hands could have been. However, Wilson outright states "I believe." He doesn't declare it a fact. He also points out that there were times he pulled the trigger in which Brown's hands were not on the gun.

I know you want to make Brown out to be the uber villain here, and he's certainly not one of the good guys, but why doesn't it bother you that the police took just about every wrong step out there in order to prevent the facts from coming out? Why were no fingerprints taken from the gun? Why was Wilson allowed to wash Brown's blood off his hands? Why was Wilson allowed to hold onto his gun after the shooting?


Wow, some horrible points here. Brown didn't need to freakin' keep his hands on the gun (or even touch the gun) to get shot. Being a huge guy trying to grab a police officer's gun absolutely should mean that you will be shot until you're no longer breathing. In what universe do you live that you think it should be otherwise?

The rest of your questions are irrelevant and (as usual) completely idiotic. He didn't have to actually reach the gun to get shot. Why wouldn't he have been allowed to wash MB's blood off? Whether he shot Brown was never in question. Why would an officer relinquish his gun after shooting a criminal?



I have no idea what most of your post is in reference to. Please quote the portion that I wrote saying it was OK to grab an officer's gun.

However, if you are asking about the gun, I'll let the Department of Justice and the FBI explain...
Washington Post: Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents

Quote:
In the critical first minutes after a shooting, investigators are trained to follow a time-tested process of protecting the scene to ensure that evidence is not compromised, according to the experts and documents. A shooting suspect ? even a police officer ? must be cordoned off in a controlled area and stripped of his clothing, his weapon secured by investigators, and must be escorted by officers if he leaves.

?An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong,? said David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St. Louis who is also a former police officer. ?The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.??


It is fun when you call my questions "idiotic" because that usually means you have no idea what you are talking about...
Quote:
A 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes, designed in conjunction with police departments across the country, addresses what experts said was perhaps the most serious breach of protocol after Brown was killed: Wilson washing the blood off his hands.

Then again, I'm sure the Justice Department is "idiotic."

I don't expect you, personally, to have answers to the questions posed. What I find sad is that nobody has answers to these questions, other than the Ferguson Police. If they had followed protocol, there would have been a lot fewer questions. There may have also been hard evidence to back up Wilson's claims.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 19:28
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Your last post is the most information reference where Brown's hands could have been. However, Wilson outright states "I believe." He doesn't declare it a fact. He also points out that there were times he pulled the trigger in which Brown's hands were not on the gun.

I know you want to make Brown out to be the uber villain here, and he's certainly not one of the good guys, but why doesn't it bother you that the police took just about every wrong step out there in order to prevent the facts from coming out? Why were no fingerprints taken from the gun? Why was Wilson allowed to wash Brown's blood off his hands? Why was Wilson allowed to hold onto his gun after the shooting?


Wow, some horrible points here. Brown didn't need to freakin' keep his hands on the gun (or even touch the gun) to get shot. Being a huge guy trying to grab a police officer's gun absolutely should mean that you will be shot until you're no longer breathing. In what universe do you live that you think it should be otherwise?

The rest of your questions are irrelevant and (as usual) completely idiotic. He didn't have to actually reach the gun to get shot. Why wouldn't he have been allowed to wash MB's blood off? Whether he shot Brown was never in question. Why would an officer relinquish his gun after shooting a criminal?


Posted on: 2014/12/1 19:01
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Raw footage - while the city burns, a Papa John's manager defends her store from looters:

http://youtu.be/ZDLpiEWlFZ0


I feel so bad for that poor guy. Of course, the cops did nothing to help. I don't understand why police were expected to exercise restraint during the riots. I recall seeing a riot in another country once and the military poured in, cordoned off the area. If the rioters ran, they were shot. Smarter people were arrested and sent to labor camps. And this may shock you but riots were rare there. Meanwhile, in France where riots are tolerated they happen all the time.

And FYI - what happened had nothing to do with peaceful protest. What we saw was straight up civil intimidation via a leftist mob. It should have been crushed by the national guard wherever it occurred. And I understand that there is a budget crisis and that prisons are overfilled, but this is the time you release non-violent offenders and replace them with rioters.

EDIT: By the way, for those that LOVE to pull the race card, why are you quiet when a bunch of leftists burn down a predominantly black neighborhood? I remember being in a gentrifying neighborhood and the residents reacting with outrage that white people were required for there to be good stores and restaurants. Well, this might be one reason why. If a business thinks that crime will be tolerated, why would they open up shop there? Would anyone here in their right mind open a business in Furgeson after this? And what do you think is happening to all the black families that bought homes in that town, hoping to build equity? Their life savings have just been largely wiped out. Why are you so intent on perpetuating a legacy of racism where the old common wisdom of "just avoid those people if you don't want trouble" lives on? All for some dead criminals that society is better off without?

Posted on: 2014/12/1 18:57
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
There isn't an argument. You have lied and stated Wilson never testified that Brown's hands on the gun prevented the gun from firing. This is because you are an ignoramus. It is clear you never read any court documents yourself, relying on media snippets and pretending you know what you're talking about.

I have posted multiple sources indicating the facts, yet you are too obtuse to understand. You prefer to stick with the fiction and fantasies in your head, such as you've fired a gun and there's no way someone's grip could prevent it from firing.

Here is yet another source.

"...took my left hand, placed it against his, and my hand on the side of my firearm and pushed forward both my arms ... I saw that it was somewhat lined up with his silhouette and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened. Pulled it again, nothing happened. Um, I believe his fingers were over in between from the hammer and the slide preventing it from firing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/documents ... ersion-of-fatal-shooting/

Now I've indulged your ignorance long enough. When you lay with dogs, you get fleas. I just had to set the record straight for the more intelligent users in this thread.

I like how your go to in all of your posts is ad hominums. You can call me a liar but I've only posted quotes and facts.

Your last post is the most information reference where Brown's hands could have been. However, Wilson outright states "I believe." He doesn't declare it a fact. He also points out that there were times he pulled the trigger in which Brown's hands were not on the gun.

I know you want to make Brown out to be the uber villain here, and he's certainly not one of the good guys, but why doesn't it bother you that the police took just about every wrong step out there in order to prevent the facts from coming out? Why were no fingerprints taken from the gun? Why was Wilson allowed to wash Brown's blood off his hands? Why was Wilson allowed to hold onto his gun after the shooting?

The one thing that I've learned in all of this is that people who claim to hate government power have no problem when it's a black kid that dies.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 17:58
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, you have not addressed the facts, only proving an ignorance of them. You can delude yourself and pretend a reporter is making up Wilson's testimony about Brown's hands preventing the first shots from going off but the rest of us live in reality.

The fact is, not only did seven independent black witnesses support Officer Wilson's account, the physical evidence did too.

The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vo ... se-supported-the-officer/

I would be much happier if you could maintain one solid point to argue and then prove it. Instead, you are bouncing all over and arguing things that I have either not said or things that do not matter.

Your statement was simple: Brown's hand prevented the gun from firing. Nobody has made this statement. The FBI agent quoting Wilson did not claim that Brown's hand prevented the gun from firing. Wilson, on the date of the shooting and during the grand jury testimony, did not state that Brown's hand prevented the gun from firing.

Wilson has stated that Brown reached for his gun and had his hand on the gun. Both are possible, yet there is no evidence proving that Brown's hand was on the gun. There is only evidence proving that Brown's DNA was in the car. That doesn't put his hand on the gun.


There isn't an argument. You have lied and stated Wilson never testified that Brown's hands on the gun prevented the gun from firing. This is because you are an ignoramus. It is clear you never read any court documents yourself, relying on media snippets and pretending you know what you're talking about.

I have posted multiple sources indicating the facts, yet you are too obtuse to understand. You prefer to stick with the fiction and fantasies in your head, such as you've fired a gun and there's no way someone's grip could prevent it from firing.

Here is yet another source.

"...took my left hand, placed it against his, and my hand on the side of my firearm and pushed forward both my arms ... I saw that it was somewhat lined up with his silhouette and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened. Pulled it again, nothing happened. Um, I believe his fingers were over in between from the hammer and the slide preventing it from firing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/documents ... ersion-of-fatal-shooting/

Now I've indulged your ignorance long enough. When you lay with dogs, you get fleas. I just had to set the record straight for the more intelligent users in this thread.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 17:48
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, you have not addressed the facts, only proving an ignorance of them. You can delude yourself and pretend a reporter is making up Wilson's testimony about Brown's hands preventing the first shots from going off but the rest of us live in reality.

The fact is, not only did seven independent black witnesses support Officer Wilson's account, the physical evidence did too.

The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vo ... se-supported-the-officer/

I would be much happier if you could maintain one solid point to argue and then prove it. Instead, you are bouncing all over and arguing things that I have either not said or things that do not matter.

Your statement was simple: Brown's hand prevented the gun from firing. Nobody has made this statement. The FBI agent quoting Wilson did not claim that Brown's hand prevented the gun from firing. Wilson, on the date of the shooting and during the grand jury testimony, did not state that Brown's hand prevented the gun from firing.

Wilson has stated that Brown reached for his gun and had his hand on the gun. Both are possible, yet there is no evidence proving that Brown's hand was on the gun. There is only evidence proving that Brown's DNA was in the car. That doesn't put his hand on the gun.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 17:29
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Pebble, you have not addressed the facts, only proving an ignorance of them. You can delude yourself and pretend a reporter is making up Wilson's testimony about Brown's hands preventing the first shots from going off but the rest of us live in reality.

The fact is, not only did seven independent black witnesses support Officer Wilson's account, the physical evidence did too.

The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vo ... se-supported-the-officer/

Posted on: 2014/12/1 17:22
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/7/30 18:30
Last Login :
2016/3/2 20:54
Group:
Banned
Posts: 255
Offline
Glad we all agree on Nancy Grace.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 15:10
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Hey Pebble, you haven't embarrassed yourself enough already? It's elsewhere in your link that Wilson testified Brown grabbed his gun and prevented the first shots from firing. You know, the thing that you keep lying by saying it never happened?

Because I had to manually type that last quote from court documents in your link and don't feel like typing more, I will quote from another article.

Then, according to the transcript, Brown grabbed his gun, and "my firearm was in his control around my hand."

Wilson managed to redirect the weapon toward Brown so that it was "somewhat lined up with his silhouette and pulled the trigger" twice, but "nothing happened" ? apparently because Brown had jammed his fingers between the hammer and the slide, preventing the gun from firing, Wilson said.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mich ... ntent-killing-him-n255521

Make no mistake, my moron comment was properly directed. The one thing I'll give you credit for is you are good at acting like you know what you're talking about. But you don't, at least not in this thread given the many falsehoods you have stated. Please try educating yourself a bit.

Bottom line, white or black, don't act like a complete violent thug and you won't get shot.

Yet again, none of what you wrote says that the reason the gun didn?t fire while Wilson pulled the trigger is because Brown?s hand was on the gun. That was your claim which you seem to have forgotten.

Wilson never claimed that Brown placed his fingers between the hammer and the slide. You?ll notice the portion is not in quotes which means those words were never actually stated. In fact, it?s still pure conjecture by the author of the piece to include it.

Here?s a basic fact: We don?t know if Brown?s hand was actually on the gun. No fingerprints were ever taken off of the gun.

I?ve not written rumor nor conjecture in this thread. Everything has been spot on about the facts that this case has presented.

If the police had responded properly to the shooting and were able to create an adequate detail of the events, complete with proper procedure for collecting evidence, then I?d understand. Sadly, that didn?t happen.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Nancy Grace, famed trauma doctor and forensic doctor!

The salient points have been proven by the forensic investigators and autopsy reports, as well as credible eyewitnesses. What Nancy Grace, or Rush Limbaugh, or Rachel Maddow opine doesn't carry any weight, nor should it. Even less weight should be paid to the obvious race-baiters.

The haters will get their way when the NYC cops get indicted for the death of the morbidly obese, career criminal, arrest resisting guy from Staten Island. Of course, rioting may still happen here if those cops get a fair trial as well.

Nancy Grace sucks.

Posted on: 2014/12/1 15:01
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2022/2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4192
Offline
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:


Maybe there are some that could look on the positives and benefits of a looting riot !


Most property insurance does not cover damage from civil unrest (riots) and war.


MDM is correct. It's NOT covered by a standard commercial property or homeowners policy or automobile insurance policy. Period. (I spent a career as a licensed insurance broker).

And to suggest that there might be "positives and benefits of a looting riot" is so low, and so naive and so non-compassionate for the innocent business owners who just lost everything that it makes me sick-


naive !

I think not and you must not of been a 'good' licensed insurance broker!

I had friends in LA during those riots that were compensated by insurance AND the government coughed up too.
I am also aware a number of business owners torched their own property during the riots and were caught out by the law. However some were very suspicious, but couldn't be proven.

Obviously reading the newspapers doesn't give you a true picture of events, however knowing cops and being invited into their private network and forums gives you a much better insight to what actually happens out there.

These links might help you IF YOU HAVE A GOOD INSURANCE POLICY BROKER (media and business)

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ne ... ance-covers.html?page=all

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busines ... 8-biz-20141126-story.html

http://www.ibamag.com/news/ferguson-w ... s-need-to-know-19262.aspx

Remind me not to seek your services jcneighbor as it is evident many businesses (as newspaper reports might suggest) didn't have enough or the right insurance cover because of inept insurance brokers!

Posted on: 2014/11/29 0:19
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:


Maybe there are some that could look on the positives and benefits of a looting riot !


Most property insurance does not cover damage from civil unrest (riots) and war.



MDM is correct. It's NOT covered by a standard commercial property or homeowners policy or automobile insurance policy. Period. (I spent a career as a licensed insurance broker).

And to suggest that there might be "positives and benefits of a looting riot" is so low, and so naive and so non-compassionate for the innocent business owners who just lost everything that it makes me sick-


This is what our country is turning into. A violent, dangerous thug is glorified as a martyr. Mobs of racist lowlifes parade in the streets because they didn't get the lynching they wanted.

At least we can take solace in the fact that the Justice System still works as intended, insulated from the effect of mob rule. I feel very sorry for Officer Wilson and his family, along with all the Ferguson business owners, all victims of racism.

Posted on: 2014/11/28 22:29
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/10/7 15:46
Last Login :
3/24 18:05
From jersey city
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3377
Offline
Report: Ferguson protesters arrested at Macy's Thanksgiving parade

Nj.com piece?.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014 ... html#incart_most-comments

Quote:
JJ comment:
Great job NYPD for finally standing up and stopping the a-holes that are disrupting the good hard working citizens of the tri-state area. Who are they to shutdown busy intersections, bridges, and parades?

Nice to see the commissioner change his tune from let them march to stop them cold. Mayor Giuliani would never have let them get away with this bs.

Funny if you watch the coverage of the ?protesters? when a news helicopter is doing a live shot they all try and group up to make it look more impressive.


Posted on: 2014/11/28 15:10
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/11/12 17:04
Last Login :
4/5 23:38
From Downtown JC, VVP Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 559
Offline
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:


Maybe there are some that could look on the positives and benefits of a looting riot !


Most property insurance does not cover damage from civil unrest (riots) and war.



MDM is correct. It's NOT covered by a standard commercial property or homeowners policy or automobile insurance policy. Period. (I spent a career as a licensed insurance broker).

And to suggest that there might be "positives and benefits of a looting riot" is so low, and so naive and so non-compassionate for the innocent business owners who just lost everything that it makes me sick-

Posted on: 2014/11/28 12:35
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/7/9 11:16
Last Login :
4/15 15:15
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2741
Offline
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:


Maybe there are some that could look on the positives and benefits of a looting riot !


Most property insurance does not cover damage from civil unrest (riots) and war.

Posted on: 2014/11/27 21:49
 Top 


Re: Jersey City prepares for decision on Ferguson indictment
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2022/2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4192
Offline
I was thinking of parking my car in that area with a 'I LOVE COPS' sticker on the back window and if I had a property with heritage listing or special planning clauses not beneficial for me, I'd have a banner on it with a 'SUPPORT the COPS' on it.

I'd get a car insurance claim, free demolition with the added bonus of a property insurance claim !

Maybe there are some that could look on the positives and benefits of a looting riot !

Posted on: 2014/11/27 20:48
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 




« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017