MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #19

[DebinGA]

In Feb. in Kansas City, MO a police officer shot/killed a firefighter who was beating him unconscious. GJ voted "no charges".

Video of the incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDUUWiiq6bY

The firefighter and his bride arrived at the Marriott after their wedding reception, and the groom is seen beating the cab driver. The police officer, moonlighting as security at the Marriott, followed the assailant who'd run off.

 

[Truthy]

IMO, saying that there's not enough evidence to draw any conclusions, is in fact saying that there should be no true bill and OW should not be arrested, tried, or convicted. Under our system of justice, the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case. For a true-bill, there has to be probable cause for the GJ to vote for indictment. So, insufficient evidence = no probable cause, no true bill, no trial, no conviction.

Doubts don't mean you get to throw the guy in prison. Doubts mean that you have to let him go.

Nope. It means they are not yet sure exactly how it happened. That OW shot Mike Brown dead is very clear, and no one is refuting it.
Surely you are not comparing us here who are getting nothing but "leaked" reports to grand jurors who sit all day looking at actual evidence. That is not at all a comparable situation. Not in the least.

 

[popsicle]

KMOX St. Louis News ‏@kmoxnews 37s
#MichaelBrown supporters plan to pack STL County Council meeting tonight to ask council members about investigation http://cbsloc.al/ZnXrvz

 

[K_Z]

Inference based on the "situations" quote posted above you. Inferred= verified for many in this case, I guess because the police have not been forthcoming with actual evidence. :shrug:

The courts denied the petition to release MB's juvenile records. The denial has been appealed. The courts did not say MB had no juvenile records. If you want to shut down appeals, you state that there are no records to release, if that is the truth.

The courts haven't said what the records "are" for, but they have said what they "are not". Not convicted of class A or B felonies, not currently facing prosecution for serious felonies, etc (to paraphrase). It's painfully obvious, IMO, that there is a juvenile record that the courts, at this time, are unwilling to discuss/ release.

I'm pretty sure the GJ will have access to the records, if they request them.

 

[DebinGA]

Do you have a link for this, or are you making inferences/assumptions based on something he said?

From CNN transcript, Aug. 20, host Chris Cuomo and Brown family lawyer Daryl Parks:

"CUOMO: Daryl Parks, Chris Cuomo out here in Ferguson. Let me give you an opportunity to respond to a couple of points, a pushback that we've been hearing here as the case progresses.

First, what that Michael Brown past as a juvenile? There's speculation that, oh, it's inaccurate to say that there's nothing there. It's only as an adult there's nothing there. Is there any truth to that, that he had altercations or any kind of record as a juvenile?

PARKS: Let me say -- I'll say this, Chris. He was a typical kid. He may have had some situations that may have occurred as a juvenile, but, you know, we need not to be at a point where we start to blame the victim for what he did. I think this officer's background is the one in question, because his actions are the ones that took Michael Brown's life.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
I think we can "infer" from the judge's ruling re the juvie record release, that there is a juvie record on file for MB. Parks may have been verifying MB had previous "altercations" as a juvie and/or "a juvenile record" ... but neither are good for Crump Inc. or bad for OW imo."

 

[cady]

IIRC there was a news report about the cameras in the area being removed as evidence.

At the time I remember thinking, why do the cameras actually need to be remove? Wouldn't the tapes just be handed over?

I'll see if I can find a link.

Eta: sorry can't find it...add salt

JMO I hope that there WERE cameras! If they were removed for evidence, that's a good thing. If they were removed, it MAY have been so that they would not be destroyed or otherwise tampered with. JMO

 

[K_Z]

KMOX St. Louis News ‏@kmoxnews 37s
#MichaelBrown supporters plan to pack STL County Council meeting tonight to ask council members about investigation http://cbsloc.al/ZnXrvz

They would be wise to have a strong police presence there, IMO, to enforce order and safety. Especially after the last free-for-all.

 

[Truthy]

The courts denied the petition to release MB's juvenile records. The denial has been appealed. The courts did not say MB had no juvenile records. If you want to shut down appeals, you state that there are no records to release, if that is the truth.

The courts haven't said what the records "are" for, but they have said what they "are not". Not convicted of class A or B felonies, not currently facing prosecution for serious felonies, etc (to paraphrase). It's painfully obvious, IMO, that there is a juvenile record that the courts, at this time, are unwilling to discuss/ release.

I'm pretty sure the GJ will have access to the records, if they request them.

So you are saying it was inferred- unless they actually stated directly there are records, that is an inference. Just clarifying for Montjoy.

 

[sonjay]

Nope. It means they are not yet sure exactly how it happened.

And "not being sure" means it's impossible to support arresting, charging or convicting OW of anything.

Surely you are not comparing us here who are getting nothing but "leaked" reports to grand jurors who sit all day looking at actual evidence. That is not at all a comparable situation. Not in the least.

Nope, not at all. I'm talking about what we're discussing here, based on what little evidence we do have. Some of us have concluded that we here at WS have seen plenty of evidence that it was a justified shoot, and believe that OW should not be indicted. And we freely admit that we would love to see and hear the evidence that the GJ is seeing and hearing, and that if credible evidence emerged that supported probable cause for an indictment, we would support an indictment.

Others here say that they've not seen sufficient evidence to draw any conclusions either way. Those people cannot logically support an indictment, an arrest, a trial or a conviction based on the evidence they've seen. If they had to vote for a true bill or no true bill right now, based on what little evidence they've seen, they would have to vote no true bill.

Anyone who wants to argue in favor of an indictment has to do more than dismiss the evidence supporting a justified shoot. They need to cite evidence that it was not a justified shoot.

 

[DeDee]

"Kareem Jackson, whose stage name is Tef Poe, is a rapper and activist.

They cannot kill us all. They can not throw us all in jail. We want justice for Michael Brown and every victim of police brutality."


http://time.com/3330800/tef-poe-ferguson-missouri-police-militarization-civil-rights/

 

[K_Z]

So you are saying it was inferred- unless they actually stated directly there are records, that is an inference. Just clarifying for Montjoy.

If I say someone is alive, then you can infer that they are not dead.
If I say the traffic light is red, you can infer that it is not green.
If I say the airplane is in the sky, you can infer that it is not on the ground.
If I say it is broad daylight, you can infer that it is not dark.

The only way the message from the court could be clearer, is if the judge plainly came out and said there are no records in existence to release. And the judge didn't do that, for a specific reason, IMO. You're free to conclude that the denial to release juvenile records means that there are no records, but that would be a logical fallacy. The denial to release the records in no way means that the records do not exist. It's an acknowledgment that the records do exist.

 

[reedus23]

Someone remind me again why we care about any juvenile records either way? If they don't amount to what would have been an A or B felony, who really cares? Other than those who just want more ammo to bash MB. Will it play any role what so ever beyond that?

 

[Montjoy]

From CNN transcript, Aug. 20, host Chris Cuomo and Brown family lawyer Daryl Parks:

"CUOMO: Daryl Parks, Chris Cuomo out here in Ferguson. Let me give you an opportunity to respond to a couple of points, a pushback that we've been hearing here as the case progresses.

First, what that Michael Brown past as a juvenile? There's speculation that, oh, it's inaccurate to say that there's nothing there. It's only as an adult there's nothing there. Is there any truth to that, that he had altercations or any kind of record as a juvenile?

PARKS: Let me say -- I'll say this, Chris. He was a typical kid. He may have had some situations that may have occurred as a juvenile, but, you know, we need not to be at a point where we start to blame the victim for what he did. I think this officer's background is the one in question, because his actions are the ones that took Michael Brown's life.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
I think we can "infer" from the judge's ruling re the juvie record release, that there is a juvie record on file for MB. Parks may have been verifying MB had previous "altercations" as a juvie and/or "a juvenile record" ... but neither are good for Crump Inc. or bad for OW imo."

As you'll note in the passage you quoted, the statement of 'some situations' was in response to a question about altercations or a record. Altercations aren't necessarily criminal, and one may be in an altercation without provoking it. So, it is an assumption to equate 'situation' with criminal record.

 

[reedus23]

Bottom line on an indictment is if the prosecuting attorney wants one, they'll get one. If they don't want one, they won't get it. We can preach from our pulpits how that is not how things work, but in real life, that is how it works.

 

[K_Z]

And "not being sure" means it's impossible to support arresting, charging or convicting OW of anything.



Nope, not at all. I'm talking about what we're discussing here, based on what little evidence we do have. Some of us have concluded that we here at WS have seen plenty of evidence that it was a justified shoot, and believe that OW should not be indicted. And we freely admit that we would love to see and hear the evidence that the GJ is seeing and hearing, and that if credible evidence emerged that supported probable cause for an indictment, we would support an indictment.

Others here say that they've not seen sufficient evidence to draw any conclusions either way. Those people cannot logically support an indictment, an arrest, a trial or a conviction based on the evidence they've seen. If they had to vote for a true bill or no true bill right now, based on what little evidence they've seen, they would have to vote no true bill.

Anyone who wants to argue in favor of an indictment has to do more than dismiss the evidence supporting a justified shoot. They need to cite evidence that it was not a justified shoot.

My father is fond of saying, "some people are determined never to allow logic and reason to prevent a good argument." My sister heard that so often growing up that it motivated her to became an attorney. (She's a really good one!)

 

[Elley Mae]

If I say someone is alive, then you can infer that they are not dead.
If I say the traffic light is red, you can infer that it is not green.
If I say the airplane is in the sky, you can infer that it is not on the ground.
If I say it is broad daylight, you can infer that it is not dark.

The only way the message from the court could be clearer, is if the judge plainly came out and said there are no records in existence to release. And the judge didn't do that, for a specific reason, IMO. You're free to conclude that the denial to release juvenile records means that there are no records, but that would be a logical fallacy. The denial to release the records in no way means that the records do not exist. It's an acknowledgment that the records do exist.

When I read the first time that the "records" had been asked for and the judge denied the release of said records, that pretty much answered it for me, no flash cards required.

 

[krimekat]

Not sure they can do this but the better question for the GJ might be did MB use excessive force in the SUV which may have determined his fate the minute he started walking towards Officer Wilson? Officers have to make life and death decision within seconds. What could Michael Brown have done to change the outcome of this shooting?

BBM above: MB could have been respectful of ODWs request to move to the sidewalk

 

[perico]

Someone remind me again why we care about any juvenile records either way? If they don't amount to what would have been an A or B felony, who really cares? Other than those who just want more ammo to bash MB. Will it play any role what so ever beyond that?

Excellent point. Every source on both sides so far has carried an agenda. Right now: choosing which one to want to believe or fits the version of events they see. Nothing wrong with that, but with all the conflicting testimony out there and suspect sources (on both sides), none of us have the slightest idea what will happen.

Both sides have tried every which way to twist this case in the press that it is sickening.

 

[krimekat]

My thoughts on this: I wonder if the x-rays were inconclusive if there was a fracture or not. And therefore, a CT scan was ordered which possibly showed a fracture? JMO.

The prosecutor is pressing for a charge, therefore he wants to show the x-rays to the GJ. IMO.

I would be curious to find out what the CT scan showed.

IMHO the County prosecution is not pressing for a charge . . .

 

[Klood-N]

KMOX St. Louis News ‏@kmoxnews 37s
#MichaelBrown supporters plan to pack STL County Council meeting tonight to ask council members about investigation http://cbsloc.al/ZnXrvz

Why? The council isn't investigating it; the grand jury & StL County police are. There really is a fundamental lack of information regarding facts and how things work there, IMO.