<p>See post 829. It’s practically perfect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Congratulations…you hit nearly every point I made. Propagating the false narrative, implying that Michael Brown was shot for jaywalking, ignoring the facts and the forensic evidence, ignoring the testimony of the witness that was directly behind Wilson’s car and described him charging at Wilson with his head down and arms forward akin to a football tackle. You know…the same witness that was threatened at the scene by one of the initial pro-Brown narrators and told to keep their mouth shut.</p>
<p>One mirror obviously remains unused.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not true.</p>
<p>I’ve heard there were multiple witnesses corroborating Wilson’s story.</p>
<p>This is just one:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way, the witness concluded that the officer’s life was in danger when he fired on Brown.</p>
<p>You can still be concerned about social justice and not think Wilson is guilty or deserved to be indicted. </p>
<p>See link below for a chart comparing each witness’ testimony to that of Wilson’s.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/</a></p>
<p>Magnetron you are incorrect about the testimony</p>
<p><a href=“Witnesses Told Grand Jury That Michael Brown Charged at Darren Wilson, Prosecutor Says - The New York Times”>Witnesses Told Grand Jury That Michael Brown Charged at Darren Wilson, Prosecutor Says - The New York Times;
<p>I have read a number of comments which say the chart cited in post 844 does not in fact match the witness testimony. And the state’s ME said the categorization of the autopsy is not accurate, as the autopsy determined some of the shots could have been fired from behind because arms, while running, are not maintained in the posture outlines which MEs use for explanatory purposes. I have not read the testimony nor the autopsy report so I’m just mentioning things are not as cut and dried as many reports indicate. </p>
<p>As for what officer Wilson will do, it appears he will be making a lot of money on the talk show circuit. NBC reports they bid about $500,000 for the Wilson interview, but ABC outbid them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>About this, I heard one ME say that arms are tough because of the elbow and shoulder joints make it tricky to determine how arms are positioned at the time of shooting. Shots in the chest are clear.</p>
<p>The chart in #844 is interesting. And if true, it supports the case for an indictment. Darren Wilson’s one-sided and self-protecting version of the facts should not have gone unchallenged or given more weight than the accumulated witness testimony. And THAT’S why we should be having a jury trial on this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe this. But you can also support law and order and the right of police to use force when necessary and still want to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that that authority is not being misused. A lot of us have our doubts. And that doesn’t make us “pro-Brown” or “anti-Wilson.” We just want to see the system work as it’s supposed to, which does not seem to have been the case here.</p>
<p>No, that’s why we should look at autopsy results and foresic evidences. From those we can construct the worst and best possibilities and what they may imply.</p>
<p>That is where we disagree. I believe the system worked the way it was supposed to. </p>
<p>I also predict there will be no finding of any federal civil rights violation in this case</p>
<p>^I agree. There’ll be nothing coming out of federal investigation.</p>
<p>The system “not working the way you want it to” is not the same as “not working the way it’s supposed to”. Just because it didn’t produce the result you wanted doesn’t mean it didn’t work properly, and implying otherwise is an insult to the 12 members who actually sat on the GJ and were able to review all the evidence. You’ve made your position more than clear on how you think the DA mishandled the GJ, and while it may have been non-standard to present so much evidence it certainly was in no way, shape, or form incorrect. I think it was the most transparent way to see whether or not an indictment was warranted, and releasing all the evidence presented to the public is even more above board. If someone wants a different outcome, they’ll choose to see the process differently.</p>
<p>When at least 9 of 12 GJ members conclude there isn’t enough evidence to provide PROBABLE CAUSE for an indictment, why would anyone think that 12 of 12 would find evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT for a conviction? </p>
<p>Wolverine, you’ve made your position clear too. I don’t blame the 12 jurors for coming to the conclusion they did. They were basically led to it.</p>
<p>This is from a thoughtful piece in Vox:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Darren Wilson's grand jury: too much evidence, too little supervision - Vox”>Darren Wilson's grand jury: too much evidence, too little supervision - Vox;
<p>Thanks for the clarity. That will teach me to use one obviously one-sided site for referencing what went wrong.</p>
<p>I’m not saying Michael Brown is not culpable, nor am I surprised he was shot in the circumstance,just that I understand when people do pick the other side (the anti-police, the anti-government side) of the argument when there are conflicting accounts. I have seen kids railroaded by the police and I have seen friends lie like dogs to get out of trouble. Neither scenario surprises me anymore. I have seen judges and lawyers complicit in the lies.</p>
<p>I don’t feel people on the opposite side of a divisive issue are racist, biased, prejudiced or ignorant, just that they come at it from a difference of perspective.</p>
<p>Okay, I am probably wasting my breath, but I’m going to try to explain the viewpoint y’all are so eloquently mocking. If you were all part of the usual hang’em high crew, I wouldn’t bother, but there’s just that one or two that I’m still surprised by, shocked really. So this is for you–you know who you are–the rest of you can just sling the usual brickbats.</p>
<p>The argument being made by a few of us is that the GJ presentation was not fair and unbiased. That it was twisted to lead to the only possible outcome. that the DA had already tried the case in his mind. That inconsistencies were allowed to fester. that the whole process is not following accepted procedures–as documented all over including in this thread. that’s why the feeling is that we did not see justice–we didn’t get a chance to. a trial has a judge; a trial is transparent. This was a done deal before the first juror entered the courtroom.</p>
<p>If you want acceptance–you need transparency. you need the fresh air of both sides fully represented. you need clarity, where calling someone a demon, a hulk, is not credible testimony.</p>
<p>Have at it.</p>
<p>garland I do not agree with that. I think there was an early narrative of police abuse killing an innocent man. That was my original thought when I saw the story. When that narrative was shown to be questionable at best the new narrative became the “system” is rigged and they tried to do that through a new narrative that the prosecutor was biased.</p>
<p>There is no proof of that in my opinion and I am not a knee jerk supporter of police or someone that feels racism is not a problem. I think and I have said earlier trying to fix the ills of society by making Wilson the scapegoat when the evidence does not support that is a travesty.</p>
<p>Well, I do not agree with that, tom. It’s clear to me that Wilson’s actions beg all sorts of questions; enough to need a fair trial. But, ah well. As King said:</p>
<p>"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”</p>
<p>Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." </p>
<p>I’ve stayed out of this thread but have dipped in and lurked on occasion. I do have to say that I disagree that the narrative has changed. Very early on people were calling on the prosecutor to recuse himself.</p>