Will Brown family pursue civil rights case vs the police or the cop?

 

I'm sure they will.

You all are slipping, took 8 posts to bring up Obama's name.

Yet nobody has blamed Bush. Refreshing.

Is it going to have to come to the point of a black guy on trial only has blacks and vice versa

 

Any idea how many blacks were on the grand jury that found Wilson innocent?

 

Three of twelve.

The problem with a low number of blacks on a jury is due to the low voter registration rate amongst blacks. They can fix this issue.

I did say testimony AND physical evidence. That would be the autopsy reports, DNA, etc. Now what?

 

Sorry for the delayed response. My point that was missed is that unless you also know the law and its intricacies (unlike the assistant DA) then knowing evidence is useless. You have to know how to apply what the evidence shows. I am speaking generically here and not just about this case.

What is stuck in your craw with me Clyde? Seems you are the one that does not have a firm grasp. Just because you seem to look for racism everywhere doesn't mean we all do. Nor do we ignore it when we do see it. Maybe it's just not there sometimes.

 

I work in law enforcement and in the justice system daily. Anyone that doesn't have things go their way feels the system is against them.

 

You've fallen into a trap that a few have over the years. I have no issue with you or anyone. I never get personal. I take exception and comment on posts - not people. You claimed the shooting was justified because Brown reached into the vehicle and punched Officer Wilson. That's not correct. That's why I said you do not have a grasp of the case.

 

To be clear, I could NOT care less about either party in this case. I don't know them. I don't have a "side" unlike many on here and on social media. You and others fall into the trap of assuming I am bothered by this ruling because I had a desired outcome. Incorrect.

 

I just want people to speak factually and not misstate what the law says or what happened. You misstated the law by saying the punch justified the shooting. That's not correct. You said your son had the case figured out by evidence without your son knowing what the wording of the proposed charges said. I pointed that out. Not because I don't like you. I'm sure you're a fine gentleman. You just haven't shown that you are intimately aware of the requirements.

 

I don't "look for racism." Hell, I'd have to be blind not to see racism in life. I'll comment in separate post on that issue in regard to this case.

 

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you know what's behind my posts. You'll be wrong 99% of the time.

I have a question? Do all the posters here that are black think that white people cannot be fair in a grand jury or trial involving people of any other race than white? I am getting that feeling by reading some of these posts.

Let's talk about what many blacks heard/thought when they heard/read Officer Wilson's testimony.

 

History is filled with the white man calling blacks "beasts." They were always described as "animals" ie less than human. Their animal tendencies made them more aggressive and stronger. They had the ability to withstand brutal beatings. "Demon" is a word that was often used- again "not human." Whites used to say that slavery kept the "savagery" of blacks in check. Heck, TODAY people are using the term "ChimpOut" to describe blacks protesting.

 

Now we read Officer Wilson's description.

 

Brown was described as looking like a "demon." He said it was like he had super strength and was going to run through bullets. He said how small he felt as compared to this large black man. Remember, Wilson is 6'4 210 - not small. Brown looked like he was "bulking up to run through shots like he was mad" that he was being shot at. In other words, "a beast" or a "demon."

 

IMO these words were carefully used to play on the age-old white fears of blacks. It was effective. It is also why many should take pause when it comes to telling a black person how they should react.

I have a question . I hear some compliants from the National media that the prosecutor didn't pursue an indictment hard enough.

 

What if after reviewing all the evidence the prosecutor realized officer Wilson was incident. In normal cases the prosecutor normally wouldn't bring a case he didn't belive in to the grand jury and would not file charges.

 

But because of the national spotlight he decided to allow a grand jury so any sense of bias would be eliminated. He allowed 12 jurors to hear and read all the evidence he had and they came to same conclusion .

 

I guess what baffles is me is why would the prosecutor be obligated to forcefully push through a charge just for the sake of pushing through a charge.

Let's talk about what many blacks heard/thought when they heard/read Officer Wilson's testimony.

 

History is filled with the white man calling blacks "beasts." They were always described as "animals" ie less than human. Their animal tendencies made them more aggressive and stronger. They had the ability to withstand brutal beatings. "Demon" is a word that was often used- again "not human." Whites used to say that slavery kept the "savagery" of blacks in check. Heck, TODAY people are using the term "ChimpOut" to describe blacks protesting.

 

Now we read Officer Wilson's description.

 

Brown was described as looking like a "demon." He said it was like he had super strength and was going to run through bullets. He said how small he felt as compared to this large black man. Remember, Wilson is 6'4 210 - not small. Brown looked like he was "bulking up to run through shots like he was mad" that he was being shot at. In other words, "a beast" or a "demon."

 

IMO these words were carefully used to play on the age-old white fears of blacks. It was effective. It is also why many should take pause when it comes to telling a black person how they should react.

 

So we're taking the code words approach? Maybe this was just the officers honest memory of what happened.

I have a question . I hear some compliants from the National media that the prosecutor didn't pursue an indictment hard enough.

 

What if after reviewing all the evidence the prosecutor realized officer Wilson was incident. In normal cases the prosecutor normally wouldn't bring a case he didn't belive in to the grand jury and would not file charges.

 

But because of the national spotlight he decided to allow a grand jury so any sense of bias would be eliminated. He allowed 12 jurors to hear and read all the evidence he had and they came to same conclusion .

 

I guess what baffles is me is why would the prosecutor be obligated to forcefully push through a charge just for the sake of pushing through a charge.

 

I do not know the rules when a GJ has to be convened.

 

The issue many have with the prosecutor is that there was no cross-examination of Officer Wilson. Everything he said went unchallenged YET it was the key testimony used. It's unusual to have the person who may be charged even testify. It's made worse when he's allowed to go unchallenged. Heck, the prosecutor fed him lines. Instead of asking how he felt he something like "and you felt threatened, right?"

 

The witness comments were attacked. The officer's were not. I can see where some would think it was stacked from the get-go.

So we're taking the code words approach? Maybe this was just the officers honest memory of what happened.

 

Code words are still in full effect as we end 2014. We don't know the answer to your last sentence/question. I think he and his lawyer smartly figured out a description and words to use. We do not have a report from the day of the shooting since Officer Wilson did not complete one so we do not know how he immediately felt.

I do not know the rules when a GJ has to be convened.

 

The issue many have with the prosecutor is that there was no cross-examination of Officer Wilson. Everything he said went unchallenged YET it was the key testimony used. It's unusual to have the person who may be charged even testify. It's made worse when he's allowed to go unchallenged. Heck, the prosecutor fed him lines. Instead of asking how he felt he something like "and you felt threatened, right?"

 

The witness comments were attacked. The officer's were not. I can see where some would think it was stacked from the get-go.

 

If the prosecutor belives the testimony and it matches up with the physical evidence what is he suppose to challenge.

 

The witness testimony that was challenged were those who obviously told lies that didn't match physical evidence , lied , or changed stories .

 

I'm just confused by this notion that the prosecutor is obligated to assume everyone is guilty even when the evidence tells him otherwise.

Code words are still in full effect as we end 2014. We don't know the answer to your last sentence/question. I think he and his lawyer smartly figured out a description and words to use. We do not have a report from the day of the shooting since Officer Wilson did not complete one so we do not know how he immediately felt.

 

Obviously he was coached. I've also laughed when people have brought that up as a negative. As if any lawyer worth a grain of salt isn't going to coach their client.

 

But I guess without evidence I have trouble connecting his statement to race or that he was directed to make racist comments. Seems like a strong accusation with no evidence to support it.

If the prosecutor belives the testimony and it matches up with the physical evidence what is he suppose to challenge.

 

The witness testimony that was challenged were those who obviously told lies that didn't match physical evidence , lied , or changed stories .

 

I'm just confused by this notion that the prosecutor is obligated to assume everyone is guilty even when the evidence tells him otherwise.

 

The obvious questions to the officer would be why did he feel his life was threatened? Why did he say the day after the shooting the he took a "glancing" blow from Brown yet he said in his GJ testimony he felt one more punch could kill him? Could be a valid answer. Don't know. Questions were never asked. Why did he not use normal procedure of having another officer book the weapon into evidence? Why did he drive himself back which is not standard in this type of case? Why did he wash his clothes? Why did he wash blood off of him?