MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #11

[Peliman]

CNNers are desperate to keep their jobs with at least 2000 job cuts coming:

http://radiotvtalk.blog.ajc.com/2014/08/24/turner-networks-including-cnn-facing-job-cuts/

Wondering if some of them will do anything to stay.

I wondered about this too. Read a finance article about Turner broadcast cut backs and buyout plans. I've also heard this story has helped CNN's ratings. Yes I can't help but wonder if there's a correlation.

Seeking to reduce costs at channels like TNT, TBS, Adult Swim and CNN, Turner Broadcasting today announced a voluntary buyout program for about 6% of its U.S.-based employees.



The buyout offers are taking place as part of a far-reaching effort to increase profitability across Turner's portfolio of cable channels. The effort is expected to eventually involve layoffs and other cost-cutting measures, as well.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/turner-broadcasting-offers-voluntary-buyouts-130900844.html

 

[LambChop]

But the "witnesses" can't change their story now....they've already given their OFFICIAL statements, both to local authorities, and the FBI. Dorian in particular is already going to be called out for changing his story.

Does anyone know how/if OW would be required to make his statement? If I understand it, he never filled out an incident report that day, I don't get that :dunno:

It would depend on when DJ hired his attorney. Wouldn't LE have to go through his attorney to get a statement since DJ was with MB when they were in the store?

 

[Frydaddy]

What about this guy? Think he could be the same one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkFsDx7SCWw

He seems younger, but I certainly couldn't rule it out. Perhaps Udbcraz2 could comment, having more familiarity than I have.

 

[bettybaby00]

I agree and I hope they also have the courage to issue an indictment if that is what is supported by the evidence. Handing down an indictment against LE can be a scary thought anytime. Add to it the attention this case has received and it could be even more difficult as I suspect there is going to be backlash from either side depending on the result.

Regarding the bolded portion, I don't know if I've seen an answer to my question yet. Justification is a legal defense and it is to be injected into a case by a defendant. It certainly seems that the prosecuting attorney's office has decided it will put on the dual hat of prosecuting attorney and defense attorney by presenting all of the evidence, including evidence that supports a defense and is usually put on by a defense attorney. Is this typical? Is the concern that I have for my prosecuting attorney also playing the role of defense attorney unwarranted? If I were the defendant instead of a police officer, I just don't see a prosecuting attorney going to any lengths to provide a grand jury with evidence supporting my defense. Also, does a grand jury even get the opportunity to consider justification? It would seem to me that their responsibility is only to consider if there is sufficient evidence to indict (the "Brown" witnesses) and any evidence of justification (the Wilson "witnesses") is considered at a later date after the defense of justification has actually been injected by the defendant. The statute clearly says it is the burden of the defendant to inject justification into a case and at this point there is no defendant, so how does justification even get injected into the case at the GJ stage?

If I understand the process the "defendant" is often asked to give his statement to the GJ, but according to most talking heads, they typically decline to do so. The GJ has the power to subpoena that person, and they can plead the fifth is my understanding as well.

I think a police shooting deviates a little from the standard norm, in that they do have to consider if his actions were justified. Also, unlike many other cases, the forensics, and autopsy info typically incriminates the defendant, in this case it may well exonerate OW. And there is no way IMO the DA can not present that evidence to the GJ, otherwise all they would be left with are eyewitness accounts. He has to present it in full, even if it doesn't support the prosecution.

JMO

 

[TexanMom]

I wondered about this too. Read a finance article about Turner broadcast cut backs and buyout plans. I've also heard this story has helped CNN's ratings. Yes I can't help but wonder if there's a correlation.



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/turner-broadcasting-offers-voluntary-buyouts-130900844.html

If it bleeds, it leads.

 

[cady]

I agree and I hope they also have the courage to issue an indictment if that is what is supported by the evidence. Handing down an indictment against LE can be a scary thought anytime. Add to it the attention this case has received and it could be even more difficult as I suspect there is going to be backlash from either side depending on the result.

Regarding the bolded portion, I don't know if I've seen an answer to my question yet. Justification is a legal defense and it is to be injected into a case by a defendant. It certainly seems that the prosecuting attorney's office has decided it will put on the dual hat of prosecuting attorney and defense attorney by presenting all of the evidence, including evidence that supports a defense and is usually put on by a defense attorney. Is this typical? Is the concern that I have for my prosecuting attorney also playing the role of defense attorney unwarranted? If I were the defendant instead of a police officer, I just don't see a prosecuting attorney going to any lengths to provide a grand jury with evidence supporting my defense. Also, does a grand jury even get the opportunity to consider justification? It would seem to me that their responsibility is only to consider if there is sufficient evidence to indict (the "Brown" witnesses) and any evidence of justification (the Wilson "witnesses") is considered at a later date after the defense of justification has actually been injected by the defendant. The statute clearly says it is the burden of the defendant to inject justification into a case and at this point there is no defendant, so how does justification even get injected into the case at the GJ stage?

THANKS Excellent Post.JMO

 

[UdbCrzy2]

What about this guy? Think he could be the same one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkFsDx7SCWw

He seems too young to me too.

I posted earlier about Anthony Shahid here
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...teen-Michael-Brown-11&p=10897878#post10897878

 

[Ladylub]

As far as I'm concerned, Baden needs to retire while he still has some respect and credibility left. He seemed so shaky, confused, and maybe embarassed in that autopsy briefing with his "assistant", that he made me wonder what was going on. And I do wonder what was/is going on with this gratis autopsy.

:cow:

I normally do not like listening to Baden b/c he gets one thing in his head and only seems to focus on that instead of the bigger picture at times ( instead of science and law he seems to be more interested in the politics and emotions with this case). During the press conference about the autopsy results he seemed cool and relaxed giving his statement. Once the questions came out he seemed to get flustered which I never seen him really do before. It was almost as if he was trying to not screw something up. Then after the presser Parcell makes the rounds through media. Baden loves the camera and attention so I found that odd. Then all that stuff about Parcell came out and now Baden is back in front of media.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

It would depend on when DJ hired his attorney. Wouldn't LE have to go through his attorney to get a statement since DJ was with MB when they were in the store?

DJ's attorney, Freeman Bosley Jr. has had a troubled past as well.

Missouri wants Freeman Bosley Jr.'s law license suspended for two years
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/...cle_b2e8bc8a-a7f8-56cc-be06-fb099c733d4a.html

Here is a little more about Anthony Shahid too.

Who's Afraid of Anthony Shahid?

He's a hero to some, a pain to others. Either way, he makes people very nervous.
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2003-02-19/news/who-s-afraid-of-anthony-shahid/

 

[DebinGA]

BBM- I'm concerned about the opposite. Will the GJ have enough courage to not issue an indictment if the evidence doesn't support it. I think most GJ's would be more intimidated by the massive protests than concern over indicting a member of LE. I'm even more concerned about the same if this goes to trial. A guy on CNN was talking about this very thing last night.

IMO

The WaPo examined DW's life in a guilt-by-association hit piece over the weekend. There were 3 writers named in the by-line and 6 more "contributors" noted at the end. There was nothing at all negative about DW himself anywhere in the article, despite their best efforts to smear him with the tar of a troubled upbringing and a discredited former police department.

The NYT also went dirt-digging over the weekend using 6 named writers/contributors, and also found zip, zero, nada negative about Darren Wilson himself.

Imagine what sworn law enforcement officers across America, active and retired, think when they see this young officer being crucified and terrorized before their very eyes? If a no-bill brings about "massive protests," I hope they're dwarfed by push-back from millions of fellow officers currently waiting and watching, but ready to make themselves heard if DW is sacrificed simply to stop emotionally-driven mobs from burning down their communities.

 

[reedus23]

If I understand the process the "defendant" is often asked to give his statement to the GJ, but according to most talking heads, they typically decline to do so. The GJ has the power to subpoena that person, and they can plead the fifth is my understanding as well.

I think a police shooting deviates a little from the standard norm, in that they do have to consider if his actions were justified. Also, unlike many other cases, the forensics, and autopsy info typically incriminates the defendant, in this case it may well exonerate OW. And there is no way IMO the DA can not present that evidence to the GJ, otherwise all they would be left with are eyewitness accounts. He has to present it in full, even if it doesn't support the prosecution.

JMO

Don't get me wrong, a part of me agrees with what you are saying. But part of me says, how is an officer involved shooting any different than any other case. I can understand a prosecuting attorney NOT submitting a case to a GJ because of evidence of justification, but once the decision is made to submit it, I still feel uncomfortable with a prosecuting attorney playing defense counsel. Just not sure how justification is any different because an officer is involved versus an ordinary citizen claiming justification. I would agree about providing forensic evidence, but the role of the prosecuting attorney, once he has decided there is enough to take it to a grand jury, is to show how the forensics match up to the evidence that supports an indictment. His job isn't to play defense attorney. Just have a problem with that and probably just have to accept that it's my problem and move on.

 

[reedus23]

DJ's attorney, Freeman Bosley Jr. has had a troubled past as well.

Missouri wants Freeman Bosley Jr.'s law license suspended for two years
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/...cle_b2e8bc8a-a7f8-56cc-be06-fb099c733d4a.html

Here is a little more about Anthony Shahid too.

Who's Afraid of Anthony Shahid?

He's a hero to some, a pain to others. Either way, he makes people very nervous.
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2003-02-19/news/who-s-afraid-of-anthony-shahid/

I'll keep my thoughts about Bosley to myself. Suffice it to say...not a fan.

 

[cady]

Ok, I understand.

I guess I was trying to say that this latest "relevation" is adding yet another version of the story to the list we already have.

Prior to this, all the versions said that OW backed up. Even the police chief stated this as fact.

Now all of a sudden, someone is saying, well no he never backed up. That actually the boys were blocking his path.

It just seems like lies are circling all around.[/QUOTE

 

[LietKynes]

www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"...CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the tape and has asked the FBI for confirmation of their interview with the man who made the recording...."

Irresponsible journalism , imo, to release this info. as if it's fact.
Of course, the DM is enthusiastically running this story . *rolls eyes*

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-27...-fired-including-final-volley-kill-shots.html

"...The unidentified man who has given the unverified tape to authorities claims to have coincidentally recorded the fatal shots that killed Brown in broad daylight on August 9,..."
emphasis mine

---Quite a number of 'unknowns' in this information for it to be published as if it were fact ; imo.

 

[CARIIS]

If I understand it, he never filled out an incident report that day, I don't get that :dunno:

IMO I think (judging from the chief ot that dept day one - he migh of said my officers head is bashed in - he can do paperwork tomm - never guessing what the next 3 weeks shall turn into just a notion!

But the "witnesses" can't change their story now....they've already given their OFFICIAL statements, both to local authorities, and the FBI. Dorian in particular is already going to be called out for changing his story.

Does anyone know how/if OW would be required to make his statement? If I understand it, he never filled out an incident report that day, I don't get that :dunno:

RE:: of shooting could have come from his TV set.

Since like Boston Marathon real bullets dont sound like tv or movies. These sound like the real ones IMO

I agree with poster who said the only thing in the whole mess that counts is that lets guess 15 seconds - was he lunged or hands up imo. We also should remembr that all that trajectory (strings etc) would be interesting.

but then back to legal and justice someone else will be paid to someone else to murkey everything off - it depends on who the jury likes best - how they dress, their hair, their voice, their word chose, cologne or perfume, - again nothing to do with a truth. Which actor do you like best!

 

[Lovejac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28929087

NYT under fire for describing MB as "no angel" in its mostly MB-favorable piece.

Well, someone told those truths about MB to the reporter. He didn't just pull them out of thin air.

Are people mad at the ones who communicated this information to the reporter?

 

[reedus23]

The WaPo examined DW's life in a guilt-by-association hit piece over the weekend. There were 3 writers named in the by-line and 6 more "contributors" noted at the end. There was nothing at all negative about DW himself anywhere in the article, despite their best efforts to smear him with the tar of a troubled upbringing and a discredited former police department.

The NYT also went dirt-digging over the weekend using 6 named writers/contributors, and also found zip, zero, nada negative about Darren Wilson himself.

Imagine what sworn law enforcement officers across America, active and retired, think when they see this young officer being crucified and terrorized before their very eyes? If a no-bill brings about "massive protests," I hope they're dwarfed by push-back from millions of fellow officers currently waiting and watching, but ready to make themselves heard if DW is sacrificed simply to stop emotionally-driven mobs from burning down their communities.

Is that the same article that talked about a couple of the officers hired by Ferguson to show the general problems they have in hiring/retaining quality officers. I think one officer they hired had been hired after being sued in 2012 over an incident of allegedly roughing up a 12 year old in Jefferson County. Another officer was hired from the City while Internal Affairs in the City had found merit to a complaint that he had beaten a 12 year old girl with a pistol. I know they also talked about how Wilson came from a department that was shut down amid controversy too. If that's the same article, I didn't take it as a smear campaign against Wilson, but rather highlighting the difficulties a city like Ferguson has in hiring/retaining quality officers and how they are relegated to hiring officers who, at the same time, are in the midst of complaints/lawsuits. Frankly, I don't disagree with a sentiment that the FPD and some of the other poorer communities should disband their police departments and contract the work to St. Louis County PD, where there is better pay, better training and better resources. That doesn't mean all of the officers would lose their jobs. Like with Jennings (where Wilson came from), the good cops could/would be hired on by the County PD.

 

[bettybaby00]

I normally do not like listening to Baden b/c he gets one thing in his head and only seems to focus on that instead of the bigger picture at times ( instead of science and law he seems to be more interested in the politics and emotions with this case). During the press conference about the autopsy results he seemed cool and relaxed giving his statement. Once the questions came out he seemed to get flustered which I never seen him really do before. It was almost as if he was trying to not screw something up. Then after the presser Parcell makes the rounds through media. Baden loves the camera and attention so I found that odd. Then all that stuff about Parcell came out and now Baden is back in front of media.

IA he gave the facts as he saw it, and was unbiased in doing so. Ie, " MB could have been charging or surrendering" however he has skewed by omission a few times. Like asserting he needed the clothing regarding GPR. The wound on the hand was likely at close range, and the clothing isn't necessary to determine that, and he also doesn't elaborate that it's possibly not even a gun shot wound.

Fraud-essor was a completely different story, b/c when the anchored allowed, he was very biased IMO.

Baden when pressed, still maintained a professional opinion as evidenced on Judge Jeanine, but he seems to be inserting some bias when he can about the overall aspects of the case. Ie, "so many shots shouldn't have been necessary"

Paraphrased

 

[Frydaddy]

Here is the problem if you put yourself in the shoes of MB's camp. In order to support an indictment, evidence has to be turned over to an entity you already don't trust. Conversely, LE doesn't have to share anything with MB's camp. Certainly, taking it to CNN is an attempt to shape public opinion, no different that FPD releasing the robbery video/info. Both sides have had a strategic release of information. Personally, and this might be wrong, but I almost expect it from personal attorneys. For whatever reason, I hold my public officials to a higher standard and wish they wouldn't play the same silly games, though I understand they have to to counteract the other side.

I don't disagree. But, with the FBI and Eric Holder on the case, the lack of trust must also extend to them in order for them to continue to do this. I comprehend the lack of trust of the LE involved in the shooting (FPD, STL County PD), that is largely the bigger picture civil rights discussion going on. But, when you extend that to the Governor and Eric Holder who have hinted at leaning your way, along with the FBI, then it appears it's less a lack of trust in LE or a tilted system and more about seeking an outcome you desire more than one that is based on fact.

Honestly, if Brown was on trial for his life for taking Wilson's, I'd be more inclined to accept the actions of MB's camp. There's more historical precedent of LE using it's might to convict people in questionable circumstances. I can't say they wouldn't use that might to clear one of their own, but in this day and age of information sharing, I don't think the mechanisms that allowed LE to hide the truth in the dark are there any more. I doubt the FBI would be complicit in clearing Wilson unless they had the evidence, so at this point, the lawyers using tactics to manipulate the public (if that is what they are doing) can only serve to create more problems that they solve.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

New Dorian interview with Don Lemon. Not sure if it has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbyGwbcyOWs

His hair has really changed too