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

[krimekat]

I don't know about that- it seems he majority of witnesses did not see any reason why OW would perceive MB as a threat. That's concenring.
MOO.

MB was a threat to ODW physically

MB 6'3" close to 300 lbs against ODW (not 6'3" & not close to 300 lbs)

 

[krimekat]

Looks like they are going after the council members next....


https://twitter.com/FergusonMafia/status/509758163155832833/photo/1

why I would NEVER run for public office or work in public service -- you may become a victim

this is not acceptable IMHO

 

[DebinGA]

MB was a threat to ODW physically

MB 6'3" close to 300 lbs against ODW (not 6'3" & not close to 300 lbs)

I've seen a number of quotes from MB friends/family about how his huge size intimidated most people at first, but when they got to know him they realized he was a gentle giant, a kid in a man's body, etc.. Unfortunately, MB gave OW less than a minute to know him before his aggression began.

 

[katydid23]

I disagree. I don't believe it is any more difficult for police to arrest someone who is disrupting a city council meeting than it is if they are disrupting the flow of traffic. While the public might be allowed at a legislative meeting, they also must follow the rules of procedure or they will be asked to leave. If they refuse, they will be arrested.

JMO

Again, it is very easy to say they 'will be asked to leave,' imo. But when you have 2 or 3 hundred unruly protestors, then how do you 'ask them to leave?'

The optics of a SWAT team entering the council chambers is not a good one, imo.

 

[reedus23]

Too funny, cady.

But seriously, I think it's time for Americans to unite as Americans and as Americans only. Time for this pot to melt already!

I think most people in Ferguson would agree with you. Unfortunately, we are no where close yet as can be seen on both sides.

 

[DebinGA]

Interesting article about why the northern arc of St. Louis, including Ferguson, is failing, while immigrants from Mexico, China, Bosnia, +, are moving in, starting businesses, in the thriving St. Louis southern arc.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next...e-just-not-in-the-black-half-of-town-20140827

The riots and raucous council meeting reinforces the wisdom of avoiding the northern/Ferguson area in the public's eye imo. Bitter and angry black people there are sabotaging any hope for positive change imo.

 

[sonjay]

That will be ignored. There are enough witnesses who, unless their testimony is different, who indicate MB wasn't a threat that I would think an indictment should be more likely than not because the standard is so much lower. A conviction is a whole different story.

A clear majority of the witnesses have said that MB turned around and starting moving back toward OW. The latest two witnesses say that OW was backing up while being advanced upon by MB.

A very hard thing to do is to listen to what the witnesses say they actually saw, not how they interpreted what they saw.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That will be ignored. There are enough witnesses who, unless their testimony is different, who indicate MB wasn't a threat that I would think an indictment should be more likely than not because the standard is so much lower. A conviction is a whole different story.

The DA says he is going to give the GJ all of the evidence he has and let them decide whether they thought OW thought MB was a threat at the time. It doesn't really matter what others thought. This is all about OWs state of mind the day it happened and what he thought.

None of the witnesses I have seen seem to know much about what really transpired at OWs SUV where a shot was fired from inside. The initial event at the SUV between MB and OW is very important.

I don't think any of the jurors are going to believe that OW had an almost 300 pound man by his neck trying to get him into his SUV. That defies common sense. OW surely wouldn't want a big giant on top of him as he is sitting in his SUV. So some may not be deemed credible by the jury if they think their story isn't logical. Others may not be believed if their story does not line up with Dr. Case's autopsy report or the crime scene evidence. Example: Shot in the back. If all the wounds were from the front then those who said he was shot in the back are wrong and if they are wrong about that then they can be wrong about other things.

Also there is another plausible reason why MB may have had his hands up and out to his side. He very well could have been taunting OW and saying to him something like this 'whatcha gonna do about it, shoot me?' We already have seen how aggressive and bold MB seemed to be that day. 15 minutes earlier he was already seen bullying a man much smaller than he and OW is also a smaller man. If it is true that OW did learn about the strong armed robbery and that is why he backed up then the jury will see the video. It would show MBs demeanor and attitude less than 15 minutes before he and OW first saw each other. Even DJ says more or less even when OW told them to get on the sidewalk they thumbed their nose at him and kept walking. It shows, IMO, that neither one had any respect for law and order and thought they could do as they saw fit.

Then factor in that some of the witnesses have said that MB came toward OW 20-25 feet and OW was backing up ...then that very well may convince the jury that MB was advancing toward OW and advancing is not surrendering by any means.

Plus it is reasonable to believe that other witnesses also saw what happened. Those who would rather talk with LE only rather than rush to the media to do interviews. Those who do not help MB and may fear for their safety if they come out for OW. The other witnesses very well could validate OWs statements he has made to all agencies.

So the eye witnesses could be a wash. Imo, what will matter is OWs statements early on and him explaining his state of mind the day he came across MB and what led to the shooting. Plus, all the forensics found at the crime scene and Dr. Case's AR. If the crime scene is consistent with OWs statements then they should not indict him.

We already know by MO law that OW was allowed to use deadly force if OW knew the person trying to escape had committed a felony. That is the easiest proven imo. OWs ER records will be shown to the jury. And by law the injuries sustained to the officer doesn't have to be a certain level anyway. The mere assault of any kind is a felony.

So if they go by the law and all the evidence presented to them they should not indict if the evidence presented lines up with OWs statements of events that day.

BUT.........they aren't a sequestered jury and they don't live in a cave. No doubt they have heard the terrorist threats about what is going to happen if they do not indict. Imo, they have heard all the hostage like demands and constant terroristic threats. They already knew before becoming GJrs there had been looting, violent protests, and burning down a business.

So will they have the courage to do the right thing even if the right thing is to not indict OW? Or will they take the easy route and indict even if the evidence doesn't support it and just pass the problem off to someone else? I imagine it will be the latter. They sure don't want the town burned to the ground including their own homes.

So whether an indictment is warranted or not.... I do think one will be handed down.

I sure couldn't do it if the evidence didn't support it but then I don't live in Ferguson (thank goodness) where they have been given ultimatums from day one. Its indict or else and they sure know what the else means.

IMO

 

[al66pine]

Normally, I would say yes to the police enforcement but in this case, after seeing what the last council meeting was like, enforcement would cause a riot. I think their best bet is to cancel the meetings for a few weeks until all this calms down a little. I know, sounds like the easy way out ....

bbm sbm

Is that a lawful option, not meeting?*
Would the council have to call and hold a special meeting to cancel regular meeting(s)?
Or hold next meeting on regular date and cancel next scheduled meeting for which agenda is already published on Ferguson website?
Would council subject itself to (more) criticism by doing that? Difficult situation for council.
Not like garden club or card club, re cancelling, rescheduling, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "ARTICLE III. The Council
Section 3.11 - Legislative Proceedings 3.11.1 Meetings
The council shall meet regularly at such times as prescribed by its rules but not less frequently than once each month.
Conditions governing the calling of additional or special meetings shall also be specified by ordinance in the council rules.
All meetings shall be open to the public except as provided by state statutes...."

ETA: https://www.municode.com/library/mo/ferguson/code_of_ordinances/PTICH_ARTIIITHCO_S3.11LEPR

ETA2: http://www.fergusoncity.com/AgendaCenter. agenda & meeting minutes

 

[sonjay]

So will they have the courage to do the right thing even if the right thing is to not indict OW? Or will they take the easy route and indict even if the evidence doesn't support it and just pass the problem off to someone else? I imagine it will be the latter. They sure don't want the town burned to the ground including their own homes.

So whether an indictment is warranted or not.... I do think one will be handed down.

I sure couldn't do it if the evidence didn't support it but then I don't live in Ferguson (thank goodness) where they have been given ultimatums from day one. Its indict or else and they sure know what the else means.

I hope they have the courage to do the right thing. An innocent man should never be prosecuted just to appease a mob.

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that OW was justified in shooting MB. Nearly beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is the total opposite of what the prosecution would have to prove in court in a trial -- beyond a reasonable doubt that OW was not justified in shooting. The evidence ... at least, the evidence that we have available to us.... doesn't even come close to supporting an indictment, IMO.

 

[DebinGA]

IIRC DA McCulloch said the two female assistant das, one black/one white, presenting the evidence to the grand jury will not recommend any specific charges. That will be left up to the grand jurors to decide based on the evidence presented, which is supposed to be "everything we've got". That's quite a departure from what normally happens. First the grand jurors will have to read the relevant MO "crime" statutes, compare the legal criteria to the evidence provided, and then at least 9 of the 12 will have to agree that it's more likely than not that OW committed a crime. I have hope that the correct decision will be so clear that they'll do the right thing, whatever that is.

 

[cady]

I think the Grand Jury will find Officer Wilson to be the most credible witness. They must determine what HIS perception was of Brown being a threat. Some guy standing 50 yards away has no clue as to what degree Officer Wilson was assaulted, the struggle for the weapon or what was said by Brown to Wilson.

JMO

JMO My understanding is that he was invited to tell his story to the GJ but is not compelled to testify, and that he has declined, per attorney advice, which is usually what happens at a GJ. So,his story would only be related to the GJ by whatever documents there are and whatever he told investigators in a signed statement. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not think that he gave sworn testimony to the GJ. JMO

 

[nothingnew]

What I can't understand is the term "African American" being used. I don't hear Jennifer Lopez described as a "Latin American" or Lisa Ling an "Asian American". Why the distinction? To me an American is an "American". Maybe I just don't like labeling and have never understood/agreed with it. JMO

If you are listening in on dispatch the JLo description would be white hispanic or hispanic female, Ling would be Asian American female. Colored was appropriate at one time as was negro but folks are still trying to find the most comfortable option in my opinion. And if it's someone from Dominican Republic it would be black hispanic-not African American.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I hope they have the courage to do the right thing. An innocent man should never be prosecuted just to appease a mob.

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that OW was justified in shooting MB. Nearly beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is the total opposite of what the prosecution would have to prove in court in a trial -- beyond a reasonable doubt that OW was not justified in shooting. The evidence ... at least, the evidence that we have available to us.... doesn't even come close to supporting an indictment, IMO.

I agree wholeheartedly Sonjay.

But I have never seen a case like this before where so many constant terroristic threats and demands have been made.

Never ever did I believe I would see the day our justice system would be held hostage. No one should ever interfere with our justice system by demanding one outcome and one outcome only. And to do so from moment one even before any evidence is known is even more egregious.

Honestly, I don't even understand how these people can make these threats and not be arrested. So many have done nothing but incite rage and violence.

To me anyone who can threaten an entire town is nothing more than homegrown terrorists. Talk about bully strong armed tactics? Ugggh, well this is it at its worst, imo.

And really these aren't just idle threats anyway.........these people are like ISIS and what they say they are going to do is exactly what they plan to do if they do not get their way. Chilling and I know the citizens of Ferguson have to be so nervous and on edge.

Will this set a precedence? And the next case that comes along then that town will be threatened into complying to the terrorists demands too?

I find the entire thing bizarre and quite frightening actually.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

JMO My understanding is that he was invited to tell his story to the GJ but is not compelled to testify, and that he has declined, per attorney advice, which is usually what happens at a GJ. So,his story would only be related to the GJ by whatever documents there are and whatever he told investigators in a signed statement. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not think that he gave sworn testimony to the GJ. JMO

Do you know where you read that OW had declined to speak to the GJ. I hadn't heard that before. Although I know his attorney may advise against it.

Yes, they would be able to know what his statement is through the lead detective that has most likely testified before the GJ. They can also ask for a copy of his written statements he made to all LE agencies.

 

[bettybaby00]

JMO My understanding is that he was invited to tell his story to the GJ but is not compelled to testify, and that he has declined, per attorney advice, which is usually what happens at a GJ. So,his story would only be related to the GJ by whatever documents there are and whatever he told investigators in a signed statement. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not think that he gave sworn testimony to the GJ. JMO

BBM. Do you have a link for that? I've never heard about this.

 

[branwynbreeze]

I think if they had something compelling, they would try to leak it. Doesn't sound like they have been holding back much these past few weeks.

I respectfully disagree. I think OW post shooting photos and hospital report are being sat on tight with warning that if released they will hunt you down and make your life unhappy.

Since MB's attorney admits tussle, he's not demanding OW's injuries to be released to public, that's a thing that makes me go hmmmmm. It's like a poker game, who's bluffing and who's got a decent hand.

 

[katydid23]

JMO My understanding is that he was invited to tell his story to the GJ but is not compelled to testify, and that he has declined, per attorney advice, which is usually what happens at a GJ. So,his story would only be related to the GJ by whatever documents there are and whatever he told investigators in a signed statement. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not think that he gave sworn testimony to the GJ. JMO

He might not have appeared in person to testify. But he would have 'testified' on video when he told his story to the investigators. So he may be relying upon that. If his statements are corroborated by solid forensics, like fingerprints of MB's on the gun or inside the car, and pictures of his facial injuries, then that will probably be enough. Especially if there are witnesses who will testify that MB blindsided him, shoved him back in the car and began punching him in the face.

 

[cady]

Do you know where you read that OW had declined to speak to the GJ. I hadn't heard that before. Although I know his attorney may advise against it.

Yes, they would be able to know what his statement is through the lead detective that has most likely testified before the GJ. They can also ask for a copy of his written statements he made to all LE agencies.

NO. As I said, just jmo. Maybe he has testified, but usually they don't because it could affect their case if it does go to trial. It locks people in to a story. If I were OW, I would decline to testify for that reason. I have no idea if his written statements were made under oath. Also, I think that we may have heard a leak if he did testify. Just speculating, like everyone else!! JMO

 

[katydid23]

It has been confirmed that the GJ is going to see the pix and videos of MB, during the robbery, 20 minutes before the incident.

I hope the GJ asks what OW was doing in the prior 20 minutes. And it would be nice if the parents of the infant would be questioned. They could be asked what the officers demeanor was. Was he aggressive, rude, or belligerent? Or was he caring and compassionate, in trying to help with the difficult situation of a tiny one with breathing problems.

Compare and contrast the demeanor of the two involved. Which one would be the aggressor?