Originally Posted By Donny How is the media so ignorant of the policy of most police agencies not to release facts of the case during an investigation.There are many reasons they do this. 1. so witnesses don't change their testimony 2. facts can sometimes change.
Originally Posted By Mr X What an excellent new slogan for FOX news! because Facts can sometimes Change
Originally Posted By ecdc >>How is the media so ignorant of the policy of most police agencies not to release facts of the case during an investigation.There are many reasons they do this<< Riiiiiiiight. Police don't release the names of accused killers. They never release details of their investigation. That's why we never hear anything at all in the news about accused murderers until their trial. Uh huh.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox It took 46 days for George Zimmerman to be arrested for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. How many days will it take for Darren Wilson to be arrested for the fatal shooting of Michael Brown?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<This thread should be called the Darren Wilson Investigation.>> Agreed. Wilson was the one who killed Brown, not the other way around.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Zimmerman was arrested very quickly due to public demand. According to CNN just now, the investigation here is proceeding very quickly also... partly because the local prosecutor does not want Holder coming in and taking it away from him. They mentioned that in police shootings it typically takes 5-6 months to seat a Grand Jury, but these cases tend to proceed much more quickly because of public demand. The lawyers talking on "each side" also agreed that swift justice is not always the best justice. It takes time to investigate properly and do things right. I think we saw with Zimmerman what happens when more emphasis is put on quick than right. The prosecution did a woeful job and a likely guilty man got off.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Zimmerman was arrested very quickly due to public demand.>> I'm sorry, but how exactly does 46 days constitute "very quickly" in your eyes? I don't consider 46 days to be quick by any stretch of the imagination.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox And there's a HUGE difference between arresting someone and going to trial. The arrest comes first, based on enough evidence to arrest. They have that right now, with the autopsy and eyewitness accounts and cell phone videos/photos. That's another part of the protesters anger, the fact that the cop is still in hiding and being protected by his department.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip That was pretty quick considering that the County Prosecutor originally declined to file charges thinking the case was not strong enough to go to trail. It can take several weeks just to process DNA evidence. The fact that an arrest occurred as quickly as it did was more due to public pressure than anything else. Remember, this was a case where the suspect claimed a "stand your ground" defense and there were no eye-witnesses around to contradict that claim. You seem to base your version of reality on what you want and not what is possible. The weakness of the prosecution's case became clear as the trial proceeded. If they had taken more time perhaps they could have done a better job.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The autopsy evidence was at best inconclusive. The one thing it did show was that initial reports that Brown was shot while running away with his hands in the air were false... he was shot from the front. What could not be concluded was whether he was advancing towards the cop to surrender or to attack him. The experts on CNN all seem to feel that it will take investigation of Brown's clothing and fingerprint and DNA analysis of Wilson's gun and holster to come up with anything conclusive. You have conflicting eyewitness accounts that on their own are probably not enough to charge at this point. It takes more to charge a cop with murder than a civilian. They are given authority to kill people when they determine it is necessary. We are not. They have to have pretty strong evidence to indicate the force used was excessive to the situation. That is not clear yet. Personally, if I were in Brown's situation I would have stood right where I was with my hands in the air. I certainly wouldn't have been advancing towards the cop. Even growing up a white kid in a white middle/upper middle class suburb, I was told by my parents what to do if I was ever stopped by a cop (my dad was a lawyer): Put my car keys on the dashboard and put my hands at the top of the steering wheel. NEVER start to exit my car or advance toward the cop. But then kids are young, dumb and don't always think clearly. I understand that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What could not be concluded was whether he was advancing towards the cop to surrender or to attack him. > I don't think it can be concluded that he was advancing at all. He could have been standing still. And if he was advancing, logic concludes it wouldn't have been to attack a cop with a gun who had already shot at him.
Originally Posted By ecdc Officer Wilson has a support group. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/08/19/officer_darren_wilson_s_online_support_group_is_as_classy_as_you_d_expect.html">http://www.slate.com/blogs/wei...ect.html</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And if he was advancing, logic concludes it wouldn't have been to attack a cop with a gun who had already shot at him.>> Well, it appears that the gun's magazine was likely emptied in less than two seconds. I doubt Brown would have had a chance to consider that the cop had already shot once and would likely shoot again. There is no way I would ever approach a cop with a gun drawn... but I know it is impossible for me to know what was going through Brown's mind.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Even less likely he was advancing, then. You can't get very far in 2 seconds when a bullet goes in your head.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, that is what is not known. And why forensic analysis of the clothing would be useful. If there were powder burns on the clothing he would have been shot at relatively close range, seeming to confirm Wilson's story that Brown after walking away suddenly turned, said "You won't shoot me" and lunged at him. If he was shot at a distance that story doesn't hold up.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm sure some say that, just as some support the turned and lunged story. Just as some originally reported that Brown was walking away with his hands up when shot... something the autopsy showed just wasn't possible. I don't think the majority of them are telling anything other than what they feel to be the truth. But eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable. That is why some semi-conclusive physical evidence would be nice. On a somewhat related note. I heard a lawyer on CNN say today he thought Brown's family having their own autopsy done was a poor strategy to take. If any of the autopsies offer differing conclusions, you have just introduced reasonable doubt... a defense lawyer's best friend. That never even occurred to me before... but sounds like a valid comment to my untrained legal mind.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <just as some support the turned and lunged story.> Apart from unnamed people on one far-right-wing website, I haven't heard any eyewitness support that. All the ones I've seen, who have all spoken openly and identified themselves, have said Brown was at a distance.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I heard there was some eyewitness verification of that version on CNN. I have no idea where they got it from.
