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

[branwynbreeze]

He has to call himself a victim so he can get paid when the settlements come it.

I thought same thing. At about 5 minute mark DJ says some thing like he cannot say, they never heard OW voice. I'm confused, I've replayed, backed it up to get context and it still sounds as if OW never spoke to them. Could someone clear this up for me?

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

 

[popsicle]

Yikes. I wonder where that window is in relation to the scene?

I am thinking when they were struggling in the vehicle that is where the bullet ended up?

 

[CARIIS]

And IMO, a lawsuit to release a non-existent record, based on a FOIA request that was denied for non-existence of the record, would be dismissed pretty promptly.

That is fabulous -- sounds like something I would type but your spelling is perfect!! Hysterical nicely done!!

Great a sentance - and you ansered my question P E R F E C T L Y!!!!

And there is a lot of data in the sentence!!



Great info on juvi laws:


http://www.16thcircuit.org/juvenile-delinquency

Also anyone with any notions about right to privacy when deceased? Trying to find out

My understanding is that the person, a reporter, who filed the lawsuit originally filed a FOIA request, which he believes was illegally denied.

IMO, if the record didn't exist, there would be no reason to "deny" the FOIA request-- the response to the FOIA would have been that there was no record in existence. And IMO, a lawsuit to release a non-existent record, based on a FOIA request that was denied for non-existence of the record, would be dismissed pretty promptly. But that's just me using logic, lol! I think a lawyer would have to weigh in on this!

My opinion is that the record does exist, and that extreme measures are being taken to prevent the release. And my speculation is that if the record contained extremely minor infraction/s, no one would be so worried about being made public. IMO, the record likely has some pretty bad stuff in it. I'd like to quote item #27 from the pdf of the filed lawsuit court document, but until I can post some kind of link, I don't think I can quote it.

 

[reedus23]

NO - the office is being accused of being a crime by many in the public eye. To me, he is innocent until proven guilty. Every citizen should get that same assumption of innocence - starting from point A and then let cracks in that opinion sway you away from the presumption of innocence. Now - MB hasn't been traditionally accused of a crime, as he is now dead, so it would be a moot point. But in order for us to start with the premise of him being a victim, we must take what we know about him into account.

To me - when an officer shoots a suspect in the line of duty, one should start with the assumption they are justified. Additional facts along the way may help us to change our opinion of the officer and most certainly, there have been cases where officers were guilty of excessive force, so I am not trying to say it doesn't happen.

BUT - I don't think that is what has happened in this case with a lot of people. Honestly, even myself in the beginning. When I first heard the story that a cop shot a kid that had his hands in the air begging for mercy I was outraged. But I took a step back, and really had to assess the situation better. It just seems that many are taking the stance that "cops are evil killers and run around shooting innocent people" and that the cops need to PROVE they are justified and that, to me, is backwards.

I agree with the presumption of innocence. I don't agree with a presumption of justification. They are 2 different concepts. In fact, the 2nd is a defense in a criminal trial in which the defendant has the burden to prove justification.

 

[reedus23]

Can you cite the witness statements that talked about crumbling and falling forward please?

Wasn't that Brady?

 

[SStarr33]

I am thinking when they were struggling in the vehicle that is where the bullet ended up?

If you open it in this link, it is way bigger and you can see a reflection of how close to the road it is:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57594&d=1409083274

 

[K_Z]

Under what circumstances can the police records for a juvenile be released? I thought there were reasons those records were sealed - i.e. to protect the minor party from discrimination, and to allow them to proceed in their adult life without the stigma of a criminal record following them around and preventing them from getting hired, etc. Obviously, that is no longer an issue in this case, of course. But kids make mistakes. I don't think they should have no chance in life because they made a few mistakes as a kid and got into trouble with the law. I also don't see why, if MB has a juvenile record, it should have any bearing on this case.

I don't know--not a lawyer! But I have read that "petty" stuff can stay sealed, but in certain circumstances "big stuff" in a juvie record (ie, murder and manslaughter charges, and accessory to those) can be unsealed.

Generally, privacy laws an stautes don't extend to deceased people. Deceased people cannot be legally defamed, or be a victim of slander or libel. Deceased people can't be charged with any crimes, so anything in a juvenile record cannot be used to inflate a current prosecution. That is the substance of the argument made by the attorney. The attorney also makes the case that FOIA exists to lessen the public ideas that the government is hiding or destroying truth.

I think the whole document is a good read.

 

[SStarr33]

I thought same thing. At about 5 minute mark DJ says some thing like he cannot say, they never heard OW voice. I'm confused, I've replayed, backed it up to get context and it still sounds as if OW never spoke to them. Could someone clear this up for me?

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

Bless you for finding that!! I heard it the first time around and could not find it again and then I totally forgot.

That is lie number what for DJ aka Eddie Haskell?

 

[SStarr33]

I am thinking when they were struggling in the vehicle that is where the bullet ended up?

Oh, and if that is the case, that is big time favorable to OW.

 

[Lovejac]

Don't know for what. You don't need to have a court case to enter the federal court building though.

Yeah. But I've never just decided one day to go to a federal court building.

Well, except for a school field trip once.

 

[oh_gal]

I know I am interrupting the flow of conversation but wanted to reply because I am just now catching up.

Policing as well as the training has changed over the years. My late husband was a retired LE night commander. He once shot a young guy in the back of his leg to stop him. He could have shot to kill but would have had to shoot him in the back and would not do that. This young guy had a gun and had just robbed a store.

Maybe the LE of today would shoot to kill, but back in the 70's and 80's that was not something that was mainstream training and was left up to the individual officer as to whether or not to shoot to kill. Each situation is different, IMO.

I am 100% in support of LE and have a strong respect for them. There are good and bad officers in LE just as there are in every profession. I'd like a chance to hear the truth in this shooting. We do not have the truth yet because we have not heard OW's side. We need the truth.

I'm seeing Don Lemon on CNN right now as I write this. He has a recording of what is supposed to be the sound of the actual shots fired. While I am not sure what to make of it, I am not so sure that it automatically makes OW guilty. The pause could be the time it took him to call for backup and exit his vehicle.

MOO's

Thanks for posting this. I posted wayyyyy back that when my dad was a cop (about 50 years ago) -- he shot a robbery suspect in the elbow, to get him to drop what he'd just stolen. They may shoot to kill now, but that wasn't always the case.

 

[gngr~snap]

Whew huh

bold not me! Red is! Based on some of the stuff that has been confusing as far as the call goes!

“He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up.

And then Michael just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and them Darren grabs for his gun. Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off.

Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming.

And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...n-speaks-out-on-shooting-of-mike-brown-audio/



​

Why didn't he know? It was broadcast.

11:57 – A police dispatcher broadcasts a detailed description of the robbery suspect, saying that he was wearing a red (St. Louis) Cardinals ball cap and yellow socks and was walking with another man toward another convenience store called QuikTrip.

12:00 – Officer Wilson leaves the scene of the call about a sick child.

12:01 – Officer Wilson encounters Michael Brown walking on a street and the shooting follows...


http://jaspercountyinnews.com/timeline-of-fatal-police-shooting-of-michael-brown/

All posts are MOO

 

[bettybaby00]

My understanding is that the person, a reporter, who filed the lawsuit originally filed a FOIA request, which he believes was illegally denied.

IMO, if the record didn't exist, there would be no reason to "deny" the FOIA request-- the response to the FOIA would have been that there was no record in existence. And IMO, a lawsuit to release a non-existent record, based on a FOIA request that was denied for non-existence of the record, would be dismissed pretty promptly. But that's just me using logic, lol! I think a lawyer would have to weigh in on this!

My opinion is that the record does exist, and that extreme measures are being taken to prevent the release. And my speculation is that if the record contained extremely minor infraction/s, no one would be so worried about being made public. IMO, the record likely has some pretty bad stuff in it. I'd like to quote item #27 from the pdf of the filed lawsuit court document, but until I can post some kind of link, I don't think I can quote it.

Actually IRRC when the link to the denial was posted, there was language to the effect "this denial neither confirms or denies that a record exists"

One if the lawyers weighed in and discussed the codes covering the unsealing of the docs. Idk if it's in the "media thread" or not. I came away from her explanation that juveniles with a "felony record" can be subject to becoming public. And so my belief that sealed means sealed isn't as cut and dried as it would seem, there are exceptions depending on the circumstances.

This guy clearly seems to feel there is something there, and it's about a felony.

 

[Lovejac]

But their proceedings will not be open to the public. And that doesn’t please Brown’s family.

“It’s about transparency,” family attorney Benjamin Crump said.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/26/whats-next-in-the-michael-brown-case/

What part of Grand Juries meet in secret does this Lawyer not get? Seriously I wish someone would "call him out" when he says this chit and the person talking/questioning him doesn't. Like their afraid to tell him he is ignorant to the fact. IDK Maybe I don't know. jmo idk

After hearing him on several news stations, it wouldn't surprise me that he actually doesn't know that fact himself.

As far as the Brown family not being pleased with that, after the Grand Jury's decision, they'll get to see, same as us, all the info that was submitted for consideration.

 

[oh_gal]

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

I agree with you. Regardless of the outcome, I hope that this officer is judged fairly, when all the facts are in, and not judged based on ramped up emotions. I feel like he's already been judged by many, and not due to any hard facts, but due to what appears to be a distrust for LEO, and, in that area, non-AA LEO especially, and/or a general dislike of LEO in general, by some.

 

[Peliman]

I, for one, do not find that account believable. Why would someone "bum rush" someone who is shooting at him? The natural reaction to gunfire is to flee, not to run directly into it.

I'd agree the instinct is to flee but all bullets hit him from the front, unless he was fleeing backwards.

 

[Bernina]

Hope this works - should be a pdf of the suit doc regarding juvenile record of Michael Brown

Per the attached doc from above post, exhibit A, page 2:


Doesn't acknowledge or deny juvie record exists ("if any exist"). Hope Johnson's "sources" (2 law enforcement sources) are reliable because that's a $25K suit that may just be frivolous......said "sources" could be reprimanded for "talking out of school", and sued by MB's family.

 

[oh_gal]

But their proceedings will not be open to the public. And that doesn’t please Brown’s family.

“It’s about transparency,” family attorney Benjamin Crump said.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/26/whats-next-in-the-michael-brown-case/

What part of Grand Juries meet in secret does this Lawyer not get? Seriously I wish someone would "call him out" when he says this chit and the person talking/questioning him doesn't. Like their afraid to tell him he is ignorant to the fact. IDK Maybe I don't know. jmo idk

(above, bbm)
He can't be serious.
Doesn't the whole idea of "transparency" carry with it the responsibility to admit or see things that might be unpleasant? Or is this a new kind of transparency, when you want everything laid on the table, but only acknowledge those things which will benefit you, and ignore the rest, as thought they never happened, or worse yet, state, "We're not going to focus on those things...they're not important."

~smh~

 

[katydid23]

The audio recording supports either side, depending on how you interpret it.

Shots to stop a fleeing felon who just assaulted an officer, pause, shots to stop an aggressor charging toward an officer. Justified.
Shots fired at an unarmed man's back, pause to hear surrender, shots to execute. Unjustified.

Spin, spin, spin.

I agree.

The only way this would hurt OW would be if it does not match what he already told the investigators. But from what little we know of his story, it seems to match.

 

[LambChop]

Grand Juries

http://grandjuryresistance.org/grandjuries.html

Unlike the "petit" jury, which is used to determine guilt in a trial, a grand jury consists of 16 to 23 jurors who are not screened for bias. The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to decide whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony crime.