MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #13

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #821
  • #822
IIRC, she also said it took EMTs 30-45 minutes to arrive which is untrue.

I also noticed that she was discussing Dr. Baden's autopsy findings which took place a week later, after the shooting. I wonder if witnesses can discuss the event with others and watch the media?

In another interview I saw Piaget Crenshaw on TV where she was wearing a black/white T-shirt with those "Hands up", showing actual hands up on the T-shirt which were just above her breasts. I thought that looked funny. Whoever designed those T-shirts ~ it does not work well on females, IMO. But more important, IMO, it showed clearly that Piaget Crenshaw was supporting MB's family and the "Hands up" demo. JMO.

ETA: Here is a picture with the "Hands up" T-shirt on Anderson's Cooper FB site:

https://www.facebook.com/AC360/posts/10154553535705533
 
  • #823
  • #824
If the Grand Jury is presented with flimsy to NO evidence that the killing was unjustified then there will be no indictment. Period. If there is evidence to support the notion that the killing was probably unjustified then they will indict. The prosecutor is responsible for presenting that evidence, if it exists. GJ will deliberate the merits of the presentment and make a decision. JMO
 
  • #825
  • #826
I do agree with that.. But 4 hours is too long IMO. I had a friend who was a coroner. I know how it all works. A body laying out for 4 hours in the street is not common. In a house? maybe longer than the street but in the street IMO 4 hours is too long.

Yes, we see, 4 hrs 'IMO, too long.'
Too long for what?
For clothed remains to be exposed to public view?
Several posts cited MSM saying remains were covered within ~10-20 min.
IDK about timing on erecting of barriers.

Now you refer to 'coroner' (not ME) implying a medico-legal or forensic protocol prohibiting remaining in place for 4hrs.
If you intended this, link pls.

Some seem to agree 'too long.' But too long for what?
 
  • #827
"Should evidence support the fight over the gun, Wilson's belief of the danger of engaging Brown would be increased. That's the law in Missouri, and it's consistent with laws in states across the country.

You may think this is not appropriate, but Wilson has the affirmative obligation to do what is necessary to arrest. That's not his right, that's his job. And it's a job we gave him, and all other law enforcement officers, when we started passing the "fleeing felon" statutes."

From your link


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes exactly, "should the evidence support" ..... Key words... The evidence does not support that yet.
 
  • #828
  • #829
Yes exactly, "should the evidence support" ..... Key words... The evidence does not support that yet.

It does IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #830
Groundhog day again
 
  • #831
It does IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Respectfully, We have no evidence at all at this point. Only hearsay. I can not decide anything on that .
 
  • #832
What are they protesting? Any idea?
I don't know.. no justice, no peace... heck no we won't go. Why in front of the police station after LE was reduced? hmm It will be interesting when it gets dark too.

They are loud and rude today imo
 
  • #833
I must have missed the media report that said that MB's family wanted this to go to the Grand Jury, or had a part in this case proceeding that way. Do you have a link for that? I thought it went to the Grand Jury because that was standard for these types of cases in St. Louis County:

"Marcia McCormick, who teaches criminal law at Saint Louis University Law School, says most of the high-level felonies in St. Louis County go through the grand jury. In addition, grand juries are almost always used in cases of alleged police brutality because they allow the prosecutor to gauge the credibility of witnesses." http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-grand-jury-how-will-it-work-ferguson-case

I think you are right. The Brown family didn't ask for it to go to the Grand Jury, they wanted Officer Wilson arrested immediately.
 
  • #834
That is something that concerns me also.

I have looked at the video and I see nothing on the officers face. He looks completely normal and uninjured to me.

Is there a clear image of OW's face in any of the videos? Or do you mean Piaget C's? Because that one is awfully fuzzy to be able assessing OW's injuries, imo.
 
  • #835
I think the reason this was so out of control from the beginning is because of the way it was handled by the police. They left MB out there for 4 hours and he was uncovered way too long. They would not comment on anything and hid the identity of the officer. They did not come forth with good information from the start.

If this was handled better, I don't believe we would have seen half the mayhem we did.



MB was only uncovered for about 20 minutes before he was covered with a white sheet.
 
  • #836
I am not sure when the hearing is regarding MB's juvenile record is but I hope it is soon. Any speck of OW's life is being delved into. Including his ex-wife's name and his current g/f's name, invading their privacy just by association. The family and family attorneys have opened the door to that information by stating what a good kid he was. The truth should be exposed. All of it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

JMO's
 
  • #837
The problem is he was not a fleeing felon. Not at that point. He was possibly a guy who took some cigars and pushed a clerk. And he had the right to a fair trial to decide his fate.

I disagree. He not only had just committed a strong armed robbery which is a class B felony he had assaulted a police officer which is always a Class A felony in MO. So yes, he was a felony suspect that day. No one who assaults a police officer gets to go on their merry way.

The suspect doesn't have to be a convicted felon when LE arrests them. They are suspects who are suspected of committing a felony or felonies.

He was a suspect in a felony or two IMO and OW knew at least about one of the felonies as he took the brunt of the felony assault from this very man.
 
  • #838
Is there a clear image of OW's face in any of the videos? Or do you mean Piaget C's? Because that one is awfully fuzzy to be able assessing OW's injuries, imo.

There seems to be nothing there. He is not holding his face or even paying attention to it as he is gabbing. Nothing is hurting so bad that he needs any attention to be able to speak. I just don't see someone who looks injured.
 
  • #839
I disagree. He not only had just committed a strong armed robbery which is a class B felony he had assaulted a police officer which is always a Class A felony in MO. So yes, he was a felony suspect that day. No one who assaults a police officer gets to go on their merry way.

The suspect doesn't have to be a convicted felon when LE arrests them. They are suspects who are suspected of committing felonies.

He was a suspect in a felony or two IMO and OW knew at least about one of the felonies as he took the brunt of the felony assault from this very man.

Again when we have proof that he assaulted DW, I will take that into account. But at this point, I don't see it.
No one is a felon unless they are convicted of a felony. We don't have that here.
 
  • #840
It does IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, that's cool, but help me out here, I am open minded. Show us the evidence that there was a fight for the gun?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
1,899
Total visitors
2,029

Forum statistics

Threads
632,358
Messages
18,625,256
Members
243,109
Latest member
cdevita26
Back
Top