Bullcrap.

You tell me in what training manual for police, where you say you are afraid of someone, you approach them seated at a tactical disadvantage?

Wilson's approach is what caused it. If he a had been that afraid of Brown he would have stopped further away and been out of his car at a distance in a standing defense position.

Wilson simply got pissed and grabbed for Brown. He went into that with a cop's mentality to be the boss. You chose to believe him, and not Brown's friend who said his first verbal approach was abusive. You cuss someone out, which is what Wilson did, and I believe Brown's friend, anyone is going to get an attitude. It was a bait by Wilson to insure no matter what Brown did Wilson could justify what he wanted, which is what he did.

Now again, I would bet my life that that grand jury was not 12-0 and I would also bet my life in a regular trial he would be convicted of something.

You are cherry picking what you want to call evidence.

Oh and only ONE witness put in front of that jury said it was a rush. But your "prosecutor" never cross examined him because even then he said " I'm not sure" and the distance that witness claimed was "50-75" yards which was not what he told cops that day. That day it was "100 yards", and that day he said he could not be sure where Brown's arms were when he turned around.

The only disagreement from the other witnesses was when he had his hands up, but the other witnesses said when you overlap them was at best it was a "stumble forward".

Your "prosecutor" had a bias even before the grand jury heard the first word. He had a close connection to a cop being murdered. So for you to claim none of that played into how he set things up, is absurd.

You wont get this following video, but blacks in America would not get away with this. There is a separate attitude you don't want to face.

The cops account made it out like brown and his friend were walking in the road and the cop was driving towards them, he stopped to tell them to get out of the road, they ignored him, so he drove up to them and tried to get out but brown slammed the door shut multiple times as the cop was trying to get out, then brown hit the cop, then the cop went for his gun and so did brown. Brown ran away for a few metres then the cop said stop or i'll shoot you, then brown stopped, moved his hand towards his waistband and tried to charge the cop, then he got shot.

I don't know if i believe that, but from that account it seems like he did the right thing. Just another incident where a simple camera would have solved this easily. Every cop should wear a camera, for their own and others safety.

(November 27, 2014 at 11:32 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: It seems the prosecutor is outright lying and should be arrested for obstruction of justice.

You're just saying this because the prosecutor in question was a woman and we know you hate women. You should shut up and just go sit in the corner and hang your head in shame you male chauvinist pig.

---

(November 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Just another incident where a simple camera would have solved this easily. Every cop should wear a camera, for their own and others safety.

This

But I would go further and say every politician should wear a body camera too.

I love transparency

(November 27, 2014 at 8:51 am)abaris Wrote: Make of this what you want, but if true, I find it pretty convincing. I know too little about the finer details of the American justice system to agree or disagree with certain points. But Kyle makes the point, that the case was rigged from the start with improper procedure and a biased prosecutor.

What he has to say about the way a grand jury usually works is generally true, especially the ham sandwich part. However, the suggestion that the prosecutor has two options: preliminary hearing before a judge, or grand jury is not. The third option which is not attempt to bring an indictment at all is by far the most common option. This is called prosecutorial desecration. The prosecutor can exercise it if he thinks he doesn't have enough evidence to win the case (a rather higher burden than what is required to indite), because he thinks as a matter of public policy the case shouldn't be tried, or because the case is less important than others on desk and his office's time is limited.

Nor is obtaining an indictment the only purpose for a grand jury proceeding. Unlike a preliminary hearing, a grand jury proceeding can be used as an evidence gathering tool. Witnesses are not required to talk to police or prosecutors in an ordinary investigation (you have the right to remain silent) and a grand jury proceeding can allow the prosecutor to compel testimony he would not otherwise get before determining whether to take a case to trial. In that case, the prosecutor may elicit evidence both for and against the defendant.

In Ferguson the prosecutor attempted to use the grand jury as a means of justifying or perhaps passing off his prosecutor discretion. While unusual, that too is not an unprecedented use of a grand jury. To that end he worked with the judge to open the grand jury records. That is highly unusual.

---

(November 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Every cop should wear a camera, for their own and others safety.

YES

---

(November 27, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: But I would go further and say every politician should wear a body camera too.

I love transparency

I wouldn't. The whole political system would grind to a halt. Most political proceeding are public. But politicians really do need to be able to negotiate compromises in private.

Actual legal experts disagree with that pecker head.

(November 27, 2014 at 12:24 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(November 27, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: But I would go further and say every politician should wear a body camera too.

I love transparency

I wouldn't. The whole political system would grind to a halt. Most political proceeding are public. But politicians really do need to be able to negotiate compromises in private.

I disagree. I am sure politicians could learn to negotiate in public. It wouldn't be hard to try. It could easily be tried on a local level....say a city council.....Without doing too much damage to the nation if indeed it is a bad idea as you suggest.

Now there are certain things that would need to be private....for national security. But day to day stuff. Those negotiations should be out in the open.

I'd wager that the vast majority of "national security" stuff could just as easily be handled in the open. Especially when "national security" usually boils down to who keeps what over cost under production factory open, making obsolete weapons in who's jurisdiction, and the precise amount of waste available to be siphoned off on that count. Seems that national security is code for "don't ask questions, I owe people that you don't want to hear about and I'd rather not discuss".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeGAnQ6D...fr0Wfc048g

The Ferguson cop is said to leave the police.

Quote: "It's not a question of if, it's a question of when. He's on paid leave, and there are discussions that are going on right now to separate from the department in an amicable fashion," Bruntrager added. "Realistically, he can't go back to being a police officer...There's no illusion about any of this. But it's the way in which he leaves ... that's important to him on different levels."

http://rt.com/usa/209811-darren-wilson-ferguson-resign/

(November 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: The cops account made it out like brown and his friend were walking in the road and the cop was driving towards them, he stopped to tell them to get out of the road, they ignored him, so he drove up to them and tried to get out but brown slammed the door shut multiple times as the cop was trying to get out, then brown hit the cop, then the cop went for his gun and so did brown. Brown ran away for a few metres then the cop said stop or i'll shoot you, then brown stopped, moved his hand towards his waistband and tried to charge the cop, then he got shot.

I don't know if i believe that, but from that account it seems like he did the right thing. Just another incident where a simple camera would have solved this easily. Every cop should wear a camera, for their own and others safety.

If that is what Wilson wants to claim, would negate the claim of fear. If you think someone is dangerous you do not approach them from a seated position at a tactical disadvantage, which is what Wilson did.

With a position of power comes responsibility. Again you chose to believe Wilson and not the friend of Brown. What transpired at the car would have been avoided with an approach of distance. It is natural human behavior, outside of issues of right or wrong, that if someone invades your physical space, humans react to that invasion.

I believe Browns friend that Wilson was not polite about it. Cops instead of being trained to dominate should be trained to defuse a situation. This happened because of long term social conditioning and erodes the public trust of law enforcement.

You cannot simply blame the guilty or the innocent and blindly trust law enforcement. You have to address conditions, not to excuse the guilty, but to reduce the risk of it even getting to this point at all.

What Brown was accused of, upon approach, is nothing I have seen as a white teen and young adult on my street, at bars and frat parties. I have seen people assault cops unarmed and did so once myself. I did not end up dead, nor did any of the people I witnessed doing stupid crap around cops.

Instead of blindly protecting Wilson, as one case, you have to look at the bigger picture to understand why Wilson did what he did, and why Brown did what he did.

You make this about Wilson as a single event you are failing to take this sample into account with a longer history.