MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #18

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
bettybaby00 said:
Hmm, am I getting cynical or does that sound threatening?
Click to expand...

Nope. I think quite the opposite. Law abiding citizens will be legally allowed to carry their weapons with them. But not anyone who has a criminal record, or mental health issues, or has ever been given an restraint order, and they get a thorough background check by the sheriffs dept.

So I think gang members and punks will be surprised when their usual victims begin pulling out their own guns in defense.
 
Just dawned on me. Didn't the MO law posted earlier about Shahid's 2nd degree assault on an officer say that'd be a Class C Felony? Didn't they only say Michael had no A & B felonies? Could the reason dad & uncle had talked to him about how to behave around an officer posted earlier be this was not his first assault on LE? Boy, that'd be a reason for Crump to not release it and the judge could've decided it would be too prejudicial! I really believe the GJ has his records.
 
popsicle said:
Just realized O'Reilly Factor is covering this.
Click to expand...

i didn't understand when o'reilly said he thought it was a mistake = but never mentioned whether he was referencing mbrown or odw.

best way to summarize the radio host - he said he's gonna get tons of emails calling him an uncle tom for what he's saying & appearing on o'reilly's show.
 
Re: DOJ's request for info re Use of Force Events: Pls leave message w first & last names & phone#

Brought over from post 1199 by K_Z
"Exactly. I can envision hundreds of calls to the DOJ hotline, all of them from "Mike Brown. That is spelled: M-I-K-E B-R-O-W-N." Then using the city police numbers, or the Prosecutor's office numbers, or 911 as their 2 "contact numbers".
(Boy, I really AM cynical.)"

I hope DOJ investigators save messages, save caller ID ,# return to call to caller ID #, get no body willing to speak, transcribe all this.
Make it available in appendix to the DOJ report.
Just shows - amidst serious accusations re LE, some ppl play "Punked" instead of trying to take constructive measures.

Re: City Council Meeting
sonjay said:
First and last name? LOL. How many of the people at the city council meeting were willing to give their names? If I recall, they thought it was an invasion of privacy, or something.
Click to expand...

IIRC, ppl wishing to make a statement or comment to legislative committee in Mo House or Senate,
must identify themselves by name (provide address & phone, perhaps just to recorder of minutes) & state capacity in which they appear.
For example, as a private citizen, as a member of MADD, or as a registered lobbyist, rep'ing ABC Co, or lobbyist for teachers' union, etc.
I understand this is common in some (or many?) sts. and in municipal governing bodies.

Imo, if someone wants to comment to city council and to have it heard by council & other ppl in attendance.
why would they refuse to ID selves & state whether they are Ferguson residents, business owners or employees?
Why should city council take time to listen to ppl refusing to ID selves. Are they random strangers who just want to spout off?
Imo, city council & the public attending meeting have a right to know who the speakers are -how & why commenting.

Ppl wanting to 'have their say' without making it public, canREGISTER & VOTE BY SECRET BALLOT in elections.

JM2cts,MOO,IMO,JMO.
 
Klood-N said:
Just dawned on me. Didn't the MO law posted earlier about Shahid's 2nd degree assault on an officer say that'd be a Class C Felony? Didn't they only say Michael had no A & B felonies? Could the reason dad & uncle had talked to him about how to behave around an officer posted earlier be this was not his first assault on LE? Boy, that'd be a reason for Crump to not release it and the judge could've decided it would be too prejudicial! I really believe the GJ has his records.
Click to expand...

Actually, I very much doubt that the GJ has his records. Crimes (or potential crimes) are events, and the information used to evaluate a potential crime is what happened during that event (and leading up to it, with respect to premeditation). Criminal history is considered prejudicial information -- people are not convicted on the basis of reputation. Criminal history does matter for sentencing, but not for determining innocence or guilt, or for that matter a decision to indict.
 
dandy said:
i didn't understand when o'reilly said he thought it was a mistake = but never mentioned whether he was referencing mbrown or odw.

best way to summarize the radio host - he said he's gonna get tons of emails calling him an uncle tom for what he's saying & appearing on o'reilly's show.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. I turned on BOR but must have missed whatever was on. What were they talking about?
 
Montjoy said:
Actually, I very much doubt that the GJ has his records. Crimes (or potential crimes) are events, and the information used to evaluate a potential crime is what happened during that event (and leading up to it, with respect to premeditation). Criminal history is considered prejudicial information -- people are not convicted on the basis of reputation. Criminal history does matter for sentencing, but not for determining innocence or guilt, or for that matter a decision to indict.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Even granting that the robbery evidence has high prejudicial value, that would not be enough to defeat admission of evidence showing a clear motive for Brown to concerned about being detained by the police. Evidence that is highly prejudicial and highly probative is admissible under Rule 403.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ld-be-admissible-at-a-federal-criminal-trial/
 
What's sad about a man calling a woman a ho or a "thot"? :waitasec:
 
Klood-N said:
Don't we send PM's or alert on posts regarding moderation questions?
Click to expand...

yes, we do. I thought since LC was right here and the rules can tend to change as cases progress I would double check. But yes, pm is best since I did not want to alert on anything because I usually save alerts for things I find offensive.
 
Klood-N said:
I disagree.

Even granting that the robbery evidence has high prejudicial value, that would not be enough to defeat admission of evidence showing a clear motive for Brown to concerned about being detained by the police. Evidence that is highly prejudicial and highly probative is admissible under Rule 403.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ld-be-admissible-at-a-federal-criminal-trial/
Click to expand...

Sure, but that is not part of his criminal record, and it is probative because it is considered part of the same event, insofar as the strong-arm robbery can be argued as a reason for him to have attempted to evade (or confront) LE. That's totally different from looking at a criminal record, which is why criminal records are not admitted as evidence during a trial (except for during sentencing).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 170 more.
Total: 1,932 (members: 171, guests: 1,761)

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
1,761
Total visitors
1,932
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,840
Messages
18,211,865
Members
233,975
Latest member
lamonara
Back
Top