<p>^ That is why I said Brown led such a messed-up life. The police has a much higher chance of encountering such a person. The society therefore tends to be willing to give them a little bit leeway when they do their job (but this could create another problem: police brutality.)</p>
<p>Another point: Assuming that Brown kept doing what he had been doing, it could be “when”, not “if”, he would run into some big problem again.</p>
<p>Is there proof as to how the struggle at the car began that doesn’t rely on only Wilson’s account? Is there proof that Brown struck Wilson or just that Wilson had and injury? I am looking at the photos of Wilson’s injury and I have been left with worse redness after being hit with a soccer ball. His injuries do not indicate the kind of near death experience that he describes and could have been caused by Brown but also could have been caused by an altercation with the door frame of his SUV. Is there proof that Brown made a pro-active grab for the gun or that he made a defensive grab when Wilson wielded it? The evidence as I understand it supports that he had contact with the gun and that he was shot in the hand at the car before running. Does the physical evidence actually firmly establish how that went down or is it left to Wilson’s account? Again . . . if it is in question why not go to try and sort it out there?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My bias is that I’m for the legal process, and for standard police protocols. Officer gives statement immediately afterward, not weeks or months later. Officer doesn’t wash blood evidence off himself, or bag his own evidence. Prosecutor doesn’t act as defense attorney. Evidence and eyewitnesses are subjected to the test of cross examination, in open court. Little things like that.</p>
<p>In my opinion, Brown was a giant kid who was used to getting what he wanted through physical force. He probably figured he would win the fight with Wilson like he always won every other fight in his short life. Less than ten minutes before he had slammed a store owner into a potato chip rack like a puppet so let’s not pretend he was a wonderful kid who had never been in trouble in his life.</p>
<p>Any step by step investigation of any case or any crime is going turn up a bunch of little things for the defense to blow up into a big conspiracy. That’s their job after a prosecutor decides there is enough evidence to bring a case to court.</p>
<p>Is the GJ part of the legal process? Now that we see McCullough did not run the GJ the argument about his bias goes away.</p>
<p>McCulloch absolutely did run the grand jury (and ran it in a way that was [url=<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/11/ferguson_grand_jury_announcement_prosecutor_robert_mcculloch_influenced.html]unconventional[/url”>Ferguson grand jury announcement: Prosecutor Robert McCulloch influenced the proceedings.]unconventional[/url</a>], to say the least). In fact it was McCulloch who decided to go to the grand jury in the first place, rather than an arraignment hearing, which would have been public.</p>
<p>From the article-</p>
<p>THE START. …</p>
<p>On the first day, McCulloch assured jurors their identities would be kept secret. But he encouraged them not to wear their grand jury badges when entering and exiting his office to avoid attracting the notice of protesters or reporters.</p>
<p>McCulloch then turned the case over to two assistants — Kathi Alizadeh, the prosecutor who was on call for August homicides, and Sheila Whirley, a prosecutor previously assigned to the grand jury. McCulloch did not participate in any additional grand jury sessions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In your opinion, okay. Based on the one incidence caught on camera, you are making up a story about someone that you don’t know based on one incident.</p>
<p>Nobody here is pretending that we know for sure whether he was a wonderful kid or a horrible kid. My guess is that he was like all other humans, a little of both.</p>
<p>What story? I don’t see a story. But, yes what he was doing ten minutes ago is useful in evaluating what he did next. Turns out he was robbing a convenience store. So, when the cop came along he had a good reason to react and he did have an additional risk going on in that scenario that some people are still calling jaywalking. If he’d cooperated he would have been handcuffed and escorted into the coming patrol car and hauled off to jail and he knew it. He chose to fight. Yeah, that’s my opinion. It’s based on evidence, though. It’s not just pulled out of the air.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This made me think of something else. Wilson described Brown as a “demon” who bullets just seemed to pass through. Was WILSON tested for drugs after the shooting? Because his hyperbole does not fit the profile of a calm, composed and experienced officer who did what some here are describing as “the only thing he could do.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? The gun wasn’t tested for fingerprints. The officer looked unharmed to me. What “proof” are you referring to?</p>
<p>He was tested for drugs and treated for bumps and bruises. </p>
<p><a href=“Darren Wilson Drug Testing Results | PDF”>Darren Wilson Drug Testing Results | PDF;
<p>But the gun was not tested for prints. And the bumps and bruises (again, barely visible to the naked eye) could have come from many sources.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s also possible he bumped himself in the face a few times while getting out of the car or while attempting to pull a 300 pound robbery suspect through the window so he could shoot him in the hand. Anything’s possible.</p>
<p>So you have no problem with the evidence being mishandled?</p>
<p>"
In your opinion, okay. Based on the one incidence caught on camera, you are making up a story about someone that you don’t know based on one incident.</p>
<p>Nobody here is pretending that we know for sure whether he was a wonderful kid or a horrible kid. My guess is that he was like all other humans, a little of both."</p>
<p>Oh come on now. It’s a pretty telling incident. </p>
<p>We all have bad days and we all have our faults. How many of us here steal from c-stores and shove the owners, again? </p>
<p>“Does it make sense that if Brown thought that he was positively identified as the perp for the stolen cigarillos that he would grab for the officer’s gun and attempt to kill the officer either with the gun or his bare hands? No, in my opinion. People are stupid some times but why would a kid who still has something to lose and no history, attack an officer with deadly force over an item worth less than $50? That’s like hanging yourself for littering”</p>
<p>It makes perfect sense to me. </p>
<p>Why would he attack an officer with deadly force over an item worth less than $50? </p>
<p>Gee, why would he steal an item worth less than $50? </p>
<p>What, all if a sudden he’s Mr. Intimidated by Authority? If he were so darn intimidated by authority, why is he stealing from c-stores? What would have happened if Wilson had happened on the c-store scene. Do you think Brown would have just meekly walked away? </p>
<p>It wasn’t about the 50-dollars. It was about the not wanting to get busted which makes perfect sense to me, too. I’m having trouble understanding how people don’t understand this. This is what criminals do every day except for the aggressively attacking the cop part. Usually, they run. But they were blocked in so maybe that’s why he chose to attack. There were no good options.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I am not saying that Brown was a boy scout. I just find it troubling that there seems to be a theme of characterizing him woven into the narrative that defends Wilson’s actions. And I’m not talking about characterizing Brown based on what occurred with Wilson, but rather characterizing him as a person based on the limited information that we have about him. There is a subtle and sometimes not so subtle suggestion that what happened to Brown is much easier to dismiss because he was a “thug”.
No, even on my bad days, I don’t go around robbing convenience stores but I do know people who did some pretty bad stuff in their youth and who have grown up to become contributing members of society. We will never know if that is what would have happened to Brown if he had lived.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So in your view, that means McCulloch never had anything further to do with it, and the assistants acted as independent operators, which no further input or review by him? Please.</p>