- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 5,729
- Reaction score
- 2,853
- Location
- Colorado mountains
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The witness accounts all agree that he was falling as he was being shot. The first three while still upright and the last two near or on the street.If Brown was laying on the ground, all the shots will have to be explained and they all entered the front of his body, which would have been impossible if he were lying down.
I am going off on a limb here. Turle Dove may be able to flesh this out better, and I might just be plain wrong:
Administratively, Wilson might have to prove that the shooting was justified. If he can't, then he can get fired etc. If the shooting was not justified, then it might also be a crime.
Technically, the burden of proof is on the proscecutor to prove that not only was the shooting not justified, but that Wilson is also guilty of a criminal act.
But.... many jurors may well presume that if Wilson cant show the shooting was justified administratively, then he is automatically guilty of a crime. They may even presume and apply that presumption despite judges instructions to the contrary.
They say he had his arms up when he turned around. He probably lowered his arms in a defensive posture as he realized that there were more shots to come.If the witnesses are saying Brown had his arms up and then he was shot, they can't be telling the truth.
The entry wounds would have been on the back of his arms and not the front.
there is a world of difference between an IA investigation, and a criminal prosecution
No, you could well be wrong at the adminstrative level.t
and Wilson never has to prove the shooting was anything.....
On the other hand, the Grand Jury doesn't have to decide if Wilson is guilty or if the witnesses are lying.but you are forgetting one important fact
Wilson doesnt have to prove innocence
the prosecution has to prove guilt
too many have jumped to conclusions on both sides of the equation
i still say we dont know a quarter of the "facts" in the case
Does having an " open mind " mean that I have to ignore the constraints of what is humanly possible ?
Or the constraints of the space time continuum ?
Because there was not enough time for him to stop, turn around, surrender and drop to his knees. You know this
So basically you're a second-hand ear-witness .
I wonder if any of those "shots" heard on the recording is an echo?
I once covered a police shooting incident in Vancouver where a video tape recorded 39 shots. There were no hits.
An independent examiner found that there were 9 shell casings accounted for and eleven bullets from the assigned amount that were missing, two were later determined to have been expended in a test fire on the range.
I do not ay this is the case here, in fact I here several distinct shots.
In any event, what this will do is further the divide between the citizens and the police, further cast doubt on their integrity seriously harking their ability to serve and protect.
They so need an independent investigation, all that need happen is the State Attorney general name a good judge, preferably half white and be done with it.
I agree, in most cases, an officer should be presumed credible unless there reasons to believe otherwise. At the same time, the more "could haves / might haves" in the claim, even an officer's claim, the more need for additional physical evidence.
In this case, there seems to be string of "could haves":
-he could have initiated an attack on me (in car)
-non lethal force might not have stopped him
-he could have then initiated one or more to the death banzai charges
-he could be incredibly dangerous, even when wounded
-he could have closed the distance seperating us before I could use other options besides lethal force
I can give the officer 1 or more "could haves". But, it appears he is asking for 5. To me, this makes the officer's claim extraordinary- even given the fact that Brown is not a "Gentle Giant" and was probably pumped up after "slapping down" the clerk.
Who has the burden of proof? Must Wilson show that the shooting was jusified? If so, I think there are too many "could haves" for him to prove the shooting was justified by his word alone. Wilson must change some "could haves" into "probably dids" with physical evidence. I dont think he can do this.
He doesn't.How do you know that there was not enough time for Brown to stop and turn?
All they need is a doubt that the homicide is justified to recommend an indictment.You're last question may be the most important one. It is up to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Wilson used force that was not justified under the circumstances. Even when video evidence is available, such as in the Rodney King incident, juries are not inclined to convict officers if their evidence is reasonable under evaluation.
They say he had his arms up when he turned around. He probably lowered his arms in a defensive posture as he realized that there were more shots to come.
He doesn't.
A basketball player can stop and turn a 180 in about a tenth of a second. There is a lot more time than that in that pause.
Your last question may be the most important one. It is up to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Wilson used force that was not justified under the circumstances. Even when video evidence is available, such as in the Rodney King incident, juries are not inclined to convict officers if their evidence is reasonable under evaluation.
There could well be two different burdens of proof- and they may blur into each other. Or, as you alluded to in the Rodney King case, they may not.
Administrative Discipline handled by internal affairs: Wilson must prove shooting was justified.
Criminal trial: Proscecutor must prove a crime was committed.
But, if Wilson can't prove shooting was justified (lets say he gets fired prior to a criminal trial), then a jury may presume that because the shooting was not justified, then Wislon must have also committed a crime.
Sure, a judge may remind them that getting fired administratively does not mean a crime was committed. Subjectively though, a jury may well blur the two concepts into one. In short, it Wilson gets adminsitratively fired for an unjustified shooting, this is going to be bad news for him at a possible criminal trial.
Angry rage and a good shot of adrenaline can make even a meek personality pretty vile and violent for a few seconds. Wilson had just been in the course of a minute or so been disobeyed and disrespected by a cocky teen, hit on the face, he had just discharged his weapon in his car and he had to chase a suspect on foot who was walking or running away from that encounter.To believe your scenario, you have to believe that Wilson is one of the most vile and violent people on the planet - also pretty stupid, because he committed this assassination in the middle of the afternoon, on a clear sunny day, in a residential neighbourhood, with many apartments surrounding the area and the prospects of numerous witnesses being present.
I see you are speaking nonsense again.
How do you know that there was not enough time for Brown to stop and turn?
He doesn't.
A basketball player can stop and turn a 180 in about a tenth of a second. There is a lot more time than that in that pause.
Angry rage and a good shot of adrenaline can make even a meek personality pretty vile and violent for a few seconds. Wilson had just been in the course of a minute or so been disobeyed and disrespected by a cocky teen, hit on the face, he had just discharged his weapon in his car and he had to chase a suspect on foot who was walking or running away from that encounter.
had he been thinking clearly without rage , the prudent thing to do would have been to holster his piece and draw his Taser as he left the cruiser. This was a busy street at high noon on a weekend and Brown was not going very far very fast.
Wilson's decisions were clouded and distorted by rage and vengeance.
Lawrence O'Donnell is a seething idiot.
Just sayin. You should pick and chose your news outlets a little better.
in watching the MSNBC interview of the various eye witnesses, i hear some say that the deceased was holding his arms up in the manner of surrender (once turned around, facing the officer). however, the fellow who did not see anything until the deceased had turned to face the shooter indicated the deceased was holding his arm while bowed over - NOT in a form of surrender
other than that, there seemed to be significant consistency between their observations
I listened to the audio.
So in that brief half a second, he stopped, turned around, and then dropped to his knees and the raised his hands ?
No way
Perhaps Brown turned and raised his hands. Then as the officer continued to fire he struck Brown in the body. At this time Brown would grab his stomach and then as he was falling to the ground, the fatal shot hit Brown in the top of the head.
I just listened to it again and the pause is easily a slow three count.I listened to the audio.
So in that brief half a second, he stopped, turned around, and then dropped to his knees and the raised his hands ?
No way
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?