Originally Posted By RoadTrip Except it apparently never happened that way. Blood splatter evidence presented to the Grand Jury indicated that Brown walked away from Wilson leaving a trial of blood, presumably from being shot in the hand in the cop car. Then the trail turns and comes back towards Wilson over 21 feet, leaving him 8-9 feet from Wilson when the fatal shots were fired and where Brown's body was found. He was NOT walking away with his hands in the air. But no one CARES about truth anymore, and that includes people of all views. How many right-wing posts have you read on FB where someone re-posts something from a conservative Blog or e-mail and presents as absolute truth something that has no factual basis whatsoever? People today decide what is truth based on their underlying political beliefs and then search for information that validates their particular point of view. Truth has very little to do with it. Except in this instance the disregard for truth has resulted in a city burning, So very sad.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But no one CARES about truth anymore, and that includes people of all views.<< Sigh. Yes, anyone who ever dares disagree with you is clearly just not interested in the truth anymore because you and your perspective, as we are constantly reminded here on LP, is the correct one, and therefore, no one must care about the truth. RT is saying 2+2=4, anyone else is saying 2+2=5, so damnit, they just don't care. Or maybe, just maybe, there's room for reasonable disagreement because Darren Wilson's statement is literally unbelievable. And the way he speaks about Brown is a freaking case study in white racism and attitudes towards black men. He just stopped short of calling Brown an animal. But just. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side">http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/...ory-side</a> >>He was NOT walking away with his hands in the air.<< So says Darren Wilson. But he'd have no reason to lie now would he. The eyewitness reports varied, as they always do. Of course, the Grand Jury report was valuable for also exposing the lies the police told early on. They said the day after the event that Brown's body was just 30 feet from the police car. It was actually more than 150 feet. But yeah, no one cares about the truth anymore, do they?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, cops lie. Witnesses lie. That is why I greatly doubt eyewitness evidence from any side. It is well known to be the least reliable evidence there is. I trust the physical evidence, and in this case it supports the story of Wilson.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Was Brown a punk kid? Absolutely. But I highly doubt he deserved to be shot at 12 times. Did his parents fail him by not instilling the horrid but necessary education of never ever talking back to a cop? Absolutely. But all parents do the best that they can with what they've got. Is Darren Wilson a racist jerk who was deliberately harassing Brown and his friend by shouting "Get the f&*k on the sidewalk!" when he saw them walking in the middle of the road? Absolutely. But being a white cop in a town that's 67% African-American would be difficult for anyone, no matter how conservative or liberal their racial attitudes. Are the looters and violent protestors people who actually understand what just happened with the prosecutor's bungling? Or are they simply mostly white teenage anarchists looking for an excuse to set the world on fire? Absolutely the latter. The only truth you can come to regarding this case is that St Louis County remains a very racist part of the country, one of the most racist counties in the nation. That's not just my opinion, but the opinion of several long-time historians, political analysts, and local journalists who've been covering this area for decades. This brief article in HuffPost from Howard Fineman about the racial history of St Louis sums it up nicely: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/st-louis-grand-jury_n_6216464.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...464.html</a> <> WASHINGTON -- If you know St. Louis, or Missouri for that matter, you know that the family of Michael Brown had no chance, and that police Officer Darren Wilson would go free. St. Louis is a lovely place, but legally it can be a toxic police mixture of the Midwestern love of social order and Border State race-based severity. The city is in some ways on the most tremulous fault line in the history of race in America: The home of W.C. Handy and the blues, of Chuck Berry and rock ‘n roll, of the Dred Scott court decision on runaway slaves. Not surprisingly, the Missouri state legislature has chosen repeatedly to ignore a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1985, which held that a police officer cannot use lethal force against a fleeing suspect unless the officer has reason to believe the suspect is armed and an immediate threat to public order. Instead, a police officer in Missouri can shoot a person the officer believes to be a fleeing felon. Period. Not to mention that the officer can shoot one who is moving toward him in a threatening manner. So the real complaint in Missouri on Monday night should not really be with the county prosecutor, however defensive and cloying he may have been in announcing the grand jury's failure to indict the officer who shot the teenager. It is with Missouri, and America, for thumbs-on-the-scale state laws that the federal government -- from Abraham Lincoln forward -- has only partly ameliorated. St. Louis is emblematic of the glory and the tragedy of the racial history of which this case is only the latest example. The city was a licentious, anything-goes river town in which the slave trade flourished, and was run in later years by German-American burghers and scions of the slave-holding South who wanted to preserve order, and the Old Order. At Mardi Gras in St. Louis, there are still clubs severely limited, shall we say, in racial terms. Some laws are a holdover from those days. They made it easy for the grand jury to return a “no true bill” –- that is, no indictment on any charges -– against Wilson. Let’s face it: In St. Louis, everyone knows who most of the suspected fleeing felons are. They are black. They are from the north side of St. Louis and similar places. It is the way things have worked since the blues began, and barbecue became a thing, and Michael Brown supposedly swiped some cigars. It was the reported theft of them that made the teen a suspected felon and that sealed his fate. And let’s make no mistake: St. Louis is as American, for better and for worse, as a city can get. <> All of that being said, the prosecutor should have sent this to trial. He used the GJ to give himself cover for not indicting a cop. His personal and professional history is largely questionable regarding trials for cops, and shouldn't be readily dismissed: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-prosecutor-has-faced-controversy-for-decades/article_cdd4c104-6086-506e-9ee8-aa957a31fee5.html">http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...ee5.html</a> <> ST. LOUIS • Robert McCulloch isn’t known to back down. For decades, the St. Louis County prosecutor has been in the spotlight for everything ranging from his prosecution of Guns N’ Roses frontman Axl Rose to questions about his deep police roots. And for decades county voters have kept him in office. On Friday, McCulloch faced calls from political foes to step aside in the investigation of the fatal shooting death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown at the hand of a white police officer. State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed wrote a letter to McCulloch saying prior prosecutorial decisions and his heavy support of Steve Stenger in his defeat of St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley in this month’s Democratic primary scarred the black community. And U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, assailed McCulloch on Friday night on a visit to Ferguson: “We don’t have any confidence in the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney’s office.” He went on to accuse McCulloch of attempting to influence a potential jury by the release this morning of the robbery video at the same time the officer’s name was released. “Bob McCulloch tried to taint the jury pool by the stunt he pulled today. I have no faith in him, but I do trust the FBI and the justice department.” McCulloch, who as a teenager lost a leg to cancer, made it his career ambition to become a prosecutor. “I couldn’t become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing,” McCulloch once told the Post-Dispatch. McCulloch took office in 1991. His first big test came a few months later with the infamous Riverport Riot when a Guns N’ Roses concert ended with injuries to 40 concertgoers and 25 police officers. McCulloch charged Axl Rose, the rock band’s front man, with misdemeanor assault and property damage alleging that Rose hit a security guard, hurt three concertgoers and trashed a dressing room. He then pursued Rose across the country seeking to enforce an arrest warrant on the charges, saying Rose “is easy to find …”Wherever he goes, we’ll be waiting for him. If he wants to cancel his whole schedule, fine. If he leaves the country, we’ll notify Customs to get him when he comes back. Rose ended up surrendering after a public uproar and entered a plea agreement. In 2001, two undercover drug officers from Dellwood shot and killed two men on the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in north St. Louis County. The officers said the suspects, who had prior felony convictions for drug and assault offenses, tried to escape arrest and then drove toward the officers. A subsequent federal investigation showed that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots and killed the suspects, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley. The probe, however, also concluded that because the officers feared for their safety, the shootings were justified. McCulloch didn’t prosecute the officers. He specifically drew the ire of defense lawyers and protesters, who had been holding demonstrations and threatened to block Highway 40,when he said of Murray and Beasley, “These guys were bums.” After being criticized, McCulloch refused to back down, saying, “The print media and self-anointed activists have been portraying the two gentlemen as folk heroes and have been vilifying the police. I think it is important for the public to know that these two and others like them for years have spread destruction in the community dealing crack cocaine and heroin.” Nasheed pointed to the Jack in the Box case in her letter: “Critically important, you must consider the potential consequences if you choose to not seek a special prosecutor. If you should decide to not indict this police officer, the rioting we witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic compared to the havoc that will likely occur, because the black community will never accept that there was an impartial investigation from your office.” McCulloch’s opponents also point to his familial ties to law enforcement. McCulloch’s father, brother, nephew and cousin all served with St. Louis police; his mother was a clerk there. McCulloch was 12 when his father, St. Louis police officer Paul McCulloch, was shot and killed July 2, 1964, in a gun battle with a kidnapper in the 2100 block of Dickson Street at the former Pruitt-Igoe public-housing complex. Witnesses said Paul McCulloch had just rounded the corner responding to the call when he was shot in the head by a fleeing kidnapper, Eddie Glenn. An hour before, Glenn had kidnapped a woman, 20, in her car in front of her parents’ store, in the 800 block of North Leffingwell Avenue, and forced her to drive around. A witness reported the kidnapping. Another officer saw the car and stopped it near 20th and O’Fallon streets. Glenn fired at the other officer and fled into the housing complex, quickly encountering McCulloch. The woman was unharmed. Glenn was found guilty one year later in St. Louis Circuit Court and sentenced to die in the state gas chamber, but the Missouri Supreme Court reduced the sentence to life in prison. Paul McCulloch, 37, had joined the city police department in 1949 and was a canine officer when he was killed. His father’s death was a major theme for McCulloch’s campaign ads that first propelled him to office. He is running unopposed for reelection in November. <> There was no way in hell this was going to trial. Everyone knew it from the beginning. And a trial was the least that could have been done and should have been done. But cops get away with just about everything these days without accountability. This situation was no different. Anytime they pull out a gun and kill someone, there should be a trial. Period. We are definitely a police state.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I trust the physical evidence, and in this case it supports the story of Wilson.>> No, it doesn't. That's why there should be a trial. But McCulloch the wanna-be-but-couldn't-be cop is never going to indict an officer. Ever. This was a travesty from the beginning.
Originally Posted By barboy4 Can anyone with a straight face morally justify this killing? A trained person with a gun unloads into a wounded and unarmed person from several feet away. This scenario needs to stop. The only way is to change the laws, that more or less, insulate police from excessive use of force. Sorry for the cliche but police have WAY too much power.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What struck me when listening to McCullouch last night is that he was supposed to be the guy prosecuting Darren Wilson... but most of the time he was speaking, he sounded more like his defense attorney. He most definitely should have recused himself and turned it over to a special prosecutor. The black community in the St. Louis area didn't trust him, and he knew that. So even if he did everything absolutely right (which I question), it was never going to be accepted by many people. Give it to a special prosecutor and you have a much greater chance at acceptance, even with a non-indictment. McCullouch had wide discretion in how he presented his case to the Grand Jury - and he chose the method most likely to result in a non-charge: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7175967/darren-wilson-charges-michael-brown-ferguson">http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/...ferguson</a> "McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, had a lot of discretion when it came to how to handle this case, and he used it in ways that experts said could have made an indictment less likely. Instead of telling the grand jury what charges Wilson should face and letting the jurors hear from a detective or a couple of main witnesses, McCulloch chose to present them with every single piece of available evidence and hear every single witness — "every scrap of evidence," as he put it — and let them decide for themselves. Alex Little, a former federal prosecutor who spent six years trying violent crimes, including homicides, told Vox's Amanda Taub in August that the strategy raised concerns about McCulloch's commitment to seeking justice in the case: So when a District Attorney says, in effect, "we'll present the evidence and let the grand jury decide," that's malarkey. If he takes that approach, then he's already decided to abdicate his role in the process as an advocate for justice. At that point, there's no longer a prosecutor in the room guiding the grand jurors, and — more importantly — no state official acting on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown... Then, when you add to the mix that minorities are notoriously underrepresented on grand juries, you have the potential for nullification — of a grand jury declining to bring charges even when there is sufficient probable cause. That's the real danger to this approach." <They said the day after the event that Brown's body was just 30 feet from the police car. It was actually more than 150 feet. But yeah, no one cares about the truth anymore, do they?> That's one thing that really sticks in my craw here. We know the police lied initially - or at the least, misstated an awfully key piece of evidence. A good prosecutor would have hammered away at that and called the police's credibility into question. Made the jury wonder what else they and Wilson weren't being truthful about. Instead, McCullouch went the kitchen sink approach, bringing in eyewitnesses who weren't particularly close or paying attention to an event they couldn't have known was about to happen, thus creating discrepancies and throwing doubt on the eyewitness' testimony rather than the cops'. And 150 feet? That's half a football field. Did Wilson really feel that threatened at that kind of distance? Look, maybe Wilson told the absolute truth the whole time. But there are enough doubts in there for me to have certainly voted to go to trial and sort it out there. An indictment is not a conviction - it's a first step to having a trial.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I agree with the information that skinner presented. St. Louis is an extraordinarily troubled and racist city. Even the way the city grew and resulted in communities like Ferguson around the city is a result of historical racism. In a less racist environment would Wilson have challenged a kid for walking in the street or stealing a pack of cigars? Probably not. But at the same time, the way Brown reacted left Wilson feeling threatened and with little choice but to use his gun. The Grand Jury can do nothing about the underlying racism and history of the area. All they can do is look at the facts of the specific case and decided if the facts supported charging Wilson. They decided they did not. People expect something of the process that it CAN NOT deliver They expect it to resolve racism. It can't do that.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I think the authorities looked at the situation as though an indictment would have been bowing to the violent threats of the protesters. Images of burning and looting totally detract from the real issue and gain no sympathy. The protesters would be served well by referring to the playbook of Martin Luther King, or Gandhi. Personally, I think there is a plague of psychopathic, trigger happy cops in this country, and would back any peaceful attempts to correct the situation. But when it comes to violence, deal me out.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox How about some perspective on this matter. Here is an article with plenty of embedded links to other outside stories regarding Darren Wilson's four-hour open testimony to the GJ. I strongly encourage you to read the original and the embedded links contained therein: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/25/1347416/-Darren-Wilson-perfect-and-sweet-vs-the-big-black-demonic-super-monster">http://www.dailykos.com/story/...-monster</a> <> It’s not often that someone who is being prosecuted gets to testify openly before a grand jury to prevent their own arrest. While legally binding and under oath, grand jury witnesses are not cross-examined and are given great space to meander and opine with their thoughts. Because the primary purpose of a prosecution-led grand jury is to secure a conviction, it’s the standard to typically only present any damning evidence available toward that goal and nothing more. After a thorough examination of Darren Wilson’s four-hour long open testimony before the grand jury, it’s clear that he was well-prepared to paint the narrative of a cordial, helpless, respectable community servant who shockingly found himself up against the biggest, blackest, strongest, demonic super monster he’s ever seen in his life. Below is an analysis and destruction of that racist narrative which has a deep history known as the big black buck or big black brute. ABOUT DARREN WILSON 1. Darren Wilson stated to the grand jury that he was 6 feet, 4 inches tall, and weighed at least 210 pounds. He's not a small man. 2. The only video we have of Darren Wilson as a Ferguson police officer is of him not being a sweet servant, but a strong bully, who threatens a man who is filming him to "throw your ass in jail" if he didn't stop filming. 3. Dorian Johnson, who was literally inches away from Mike Brown when Darren Wilson pulled up, has stated from the day Mike Brown was killed that Darren Wilson was vulgar and belligerent, telling them to "get the fuck on the sidewalk" as soon as he pulled up beside them. THE SWEET WHITE PERFECTION OF DARREN WILSON'S TESTIMONY Upon seeing Mike Brown and Dorian Johnson, Darren Wilson, driving up in is Tahoe, nicely asks them, "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" Dorian Johnson tells him, "We're almost at our destination." As friendly as Mr. Rogers, Darren Wilson then asks, according to his testimony, "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?" THE BIG BLACK DEMONIC SUPERMONSTER EMERGES After hearing Officer Darren Wilson, friendly and cordial, armed, in his full-size Chevy Tahoe warmly ask "What's wrong with the sidewalk?" Mike Brown, in full monster mode, tells him angrily, "Fuck what you have to say." THE SWEET WHITE PERFECTION OF DARREN WILSON'S TESTIMONY CONTINUES According to Darren Wilson, it's after monster Mike Brown makes the vulgar statement to him that he decides to peacefully drive away down Canfield Drive. After peacefully driving away, Darren Wilson calmly reverses the car and says to Mike Brown, "Hey. Come here for a minute." THE BIG BLACK DEMONIC SUPERMONSTER GETS ANGRY Hearing the warm request of Darren Wilson, Mike Brown looks him in the face and says, "What the fuck are you going to do about it?" and slams the barely open door back on Darren Wilson. Wilson tells monster Mike Brown to back up but, according to Darren Wilson, Mike Brown just stares "to intimidate me or to overpower me...the intense face he had was not what I expected." Darren Wilson then attempts to open his door one more time, but monster Mike closes it, and, according to Wilson, Mike Brown ducks and Wilson, as if he himself is somewhere far away states, "I saw him coming into my vehicle." Strangely Wilson then states, "I turned, so I don't remember seeing him come at me." It gets stranger. Darren Wilson then states that Mike Brown hit him with his right hand with a "full-on-swing." Then, when asked what hand Mike Brown was holding the Cigarillos in, Darren Wilson states, "They were in his right hand." As they struggle, Wilson stated in his testimony that Mike Brown moves the Cigarillos from his right hand to his left hand, all while completely dominating Darren Wilson who, not once, claims to have ever put his hands on Mike Brown in a violent manner. Shockingly, Wilson then states that while Mike Brown fully controlled him, he turns his head, reaches backwards to Dorian Johnson, and says, regarding the Cigarillos, "Here man hold these." At this point, Darren Wilson appeared to even shock the prosecutor with his next statement. Wilson: When I grabbed him, the only way I can describe it is I felt like a five year old grabbing Hulk Hogan. Attorney: Holding onto what? Wilson: Hulk Hogan. That's just how big he felt and how small I felt. Having first said that Mike Brown was inside of his SUV punching him, Darren Wilson, having just described Mike Brown as having passed Cigarillos to Dorian Johnson, describes Mike Brown as being "six inches away from the door" and not inside of the car. Still at this point, Wilson has said nothing of holding on to Mike, choking Mike, punching Mike—it's a one-sided battle. THE SWEET WHITE PERFECTION OF DARREN WILSON'S TESTIMONY CONTINUES Not wanting to use his gun, Wilson then goes on a very long explanation of how, in the heat of the battle with Mike Brown, he first considered using his mace, but thought that Brown would block it and some would get back on him, then he considered a taser, but he didn't have one on him, then he considered his baton, but he didn't think he could get a good swing at Mike, then he considered his flashlight, but it was too far away. Left with only one option, Darren Wilson draws his gun, points it at Mike Brown, and then states, "Get back or I'm going to shoot you." THE BIG BLACK DEMONIC SUPERMONSTER RETURNS Staring Darren Wilson down, the gun pointing in his face, Mike Brown looks right at Darren Wilson and says, according to Wilson's testimony, "You are too much of a pussy to shoot me" and boldly grabs the gun. This statement, outrageous on its face, echoes the statement that George Zimmerman said unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin made to him shortly before he was shot and killed when he said, "You are going to die tonight, motherfucker." Stating that he was afraid of the "bigger and stronger" Brown, Darren Wilson then claims that he was afraid one more punch from Mike Brown might actually kill him by stating, "I've already taken two to the face and the third one could be fatal." Mike Brown, according to Wilson, holds the gun onto Wilson's leg. Somehow, Wilson is able to get the gun off of his leg from the "bigger and stronger" Brown. Wilson attempts to pull the trigger twice and nothing happens. On the third trigger pull, the gun goes off, glass from a window shatters, it startles Mike Brown, he lets go, backs up, then morphs back into full monster mode. Wilson testified: "And then after he did that, he looked up at me and had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that's how angry he looked." Then, according to Wilson, Mike Brown charges back at the armed Wilson, punches him again, and after Wilson gets punched again, he fires one more shot at Mike Brown and hits him. According to Wilson, Mike Brown then took off running over 175 feet away from the SUV. After getting 175 feet away, according to Darren Wilson, Mike Brown voluntarily stopped and decided to do what only a superhuman monster would do. "He turns, and when he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he's coming back towards me. His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running, when he does that, his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, and his right one goes into his shirt, in his waistband, and he starts running at me. I keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I know I hit him at least once." Inferring that Mike Brown has a gun in his waist that his right hand is holding, Darren Wilson went on to state, "I remember having tunnel vision on his right hand. That's all. I'm just focusing on that right hand when I'm shooting. I shoot another round of shots. I don't recall how many it was or if I hit him every time. I know at least once, because he flinched again." Finally, according to Darren Wilson, Mike Brown turned up his super-villain instincts just one last time. "At this point, it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots. Like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him. And the face he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn't even there, I wasn't even in his way ... I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head, and that's what I shot ... the aggression was gone, the threat was stopped." This, ladies and gentlemen, is the fairy tale of Sweet Darren versus Monster Mike. <> Given this actual testimony coupled with his prior professional history with a heavily racist police department from which he was fired, I have zero doubt that Darren Wilson is a bigoted bully who lied through his teeth to the GJ in order to escape indictment. His story reeks of fantasy and has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. McCulloch used a handpicked GJ to make the case that Brown was an unstoppable evil monster that had to be shot down like a rapid dog lest the weak and skinny cop who couldn't defend himself without weaponry be brutally murdered in cold blood. Maybe crap like this flies in the midwest areas like St Louis County, but it doesn't pass muster with educated folks here on the coast who can smell racist shyte a mile away. The jerk needed to be indicted. I hope the Federal government can do something to bring this d-bag to justice via their investigation.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Why? There isn't a jury that would convict him anyway based on the conflicting eyewitness testimony that was given. Reasonable doubt and all that other nuisance stuff. Then the lynch mob can burn down the rest of the city. If they don't do it tonight.
Originally Posted By TeePartyWave Like I said, the regular crowd of liberal fools on here were so excited to race bait and convict a police officer of murder, is it any wonder these fools are on her today trying to justify their ignorance and blatant lying? These dupes are posting links to far left kook websites as some kind of what? Pathetic.. Skinbox, you, Dabob and other liberals like you , are the reason Ferguson burned last night. YOU convicted a cop with zero evidence.....you demanded " justice " without caring to get the facts. You gladly race baited the entire time like good little liberals do. Way to go losers....feel free to read the grand jury report were ALL 12 people who heard ALL the evidence say you are full of sh#t. BM out..
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "There isn't a jury that would convict him anyway based on the conflicting eyewitness testimony that was given. Reasonable doubt and all that other nuisance stuff." First of all, almost no trial will not have conflicting evidence. I just saw a defense attorney and a DA on TV who confirmed that. They agreed that conflicting eyewitness evidence is the norm, and that's what the trial is supposed to sort out. And the standard for a grand jury is not reasonable doubt. After reading quite a bit of the testimony today, and seeing the questions that were asked of Wilson, it's clear as day to me that McCullouch didn't want an indictment. He wanted an acquittal, which is not what a prosecutor is supposed to push for. And that's why he didn't recuse himself. He got exactly what he wanted.
Originally Posted By TeePartyWave <<After reading quite a bit of the testimony today, and seeing the questions that were asked of Wilson, it's clear as day to me that McCullouch didn't want an indictment.>> Total BS. I guess you just can't admit you were wrong about this case just like you have been wrong about countless other issues. You are always wrong "DaBob " because you are not very bright. This is why you hide here instead of ever going to site where conservatives would destroy you with ease.. When witness after witness tells the same story as officer Wilson its a slam dunk case...unless you are a libtard who cheers on the riots and the race baiting.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You are right... McCullough didn't push for an indictment because he never thought there was probable cause to begin with. He just threw it to a Grand Jury because he lacked the balls to make the call himself and wanted to avoid taking the heat. By the way Skinner, I'm sure it is easy to act all smug and criticize when you have no clue what kind of problems the community faces. Black Population Ferguson 65.04% San Francisco 5.99% Household Income Ferguson $37,517 San Francisco $73,802 Unemployment Rate Ferguson 6.1% San Francisco 4.4% It must be pretty easy to look down on the people of Ferguson sitting high on your hill. You might want to try Midwest style policing though. I found one statistic that totally shocked me. Violent Crime Rate (low of 0 to high of 100) Ferguson 58.6 San Francisco 67.2
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ I should have mentioned that all data in the above post is from bestplaces.net
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<It must be pretty easy to look down on the people of Ferguson sitting high on your hill.>> I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON FERGUSON, MORON. I AM LOOKING DOWN AT ALL OF THE WHITE PEOPLE IN ST LOUIS COUNTY WHO KEEP ELECTING THIS MCCULLOCH JERK OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. ST LOUIS COUNTY IS ABUNDANTLY RACIST. THIS MESS IN FERGUSON IS NOTHING BUT PURE AND UNADULTERATED RACISM. AND I'M SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING TO EXPLAIN MYSELF TO YOU WITH YOUR HOLIER-THAN-THOU ARROGANT ATTITUDE ABOUT THIS SITUATION. YES! I AM SHOUTING!! BECAUSE I'M TOTALLY FED UP WITH YOUR IGNORANCE AND INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I WRITE!!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I understand you perfectly and agree with you on many things. I agree the area is racist. I agree that if nothing else, the racial makeup of the Ferguson police department is racist. I don't think the decision to shoot was racist, and I don't think the conclusion of the Grand Jury is racist. McCulloch's main crime is the total lack of balls. He KNEW there was not probable cause to indict, but didn't want to take the heat for making the decision. So he threw it to a Grand Jury and let them view ALL the evidence just like he did. Without him pushing them one way or the other, they came to the same conclusion he originally had. The crime here is he wasted months and untold dollars by not declining to file charges in the first place and leaving it at that.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Not that it makes any difference to you, but most St. Louis area legal experts and university professors feel that the Grand Jury result was the only one they could arrive at, and even if they had decided to charge there would have been virtually no chance of conviction. I realize they are racist Missourians and therefor suspect, but at least you can't accuse them of being uneducated. This really wasn't a great case to make a national issue of in the first place.
