Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

a reply to: amazing

LEOs aren't there to fight people. They're there to win if somebody tries to fight them. They don't have to budget to become black belts in a martial art. If you have any suggestions on where the money can come from to train LEOs to a high level of proficiency in martial arts, by all means throw it out there.

a reply to: amazing

Let's break your post down:

You don't fight someone while sitting in a car. You have no leverage or movement.

Wilson did not initiate the fight from his vehicle. He was attempting to exit his vehicle when brown charged the door and attacked Wilson through the window.

If it's a fight and shots fired and Brown is that scary. You don't get out of the car unless you realize that you probably will have to shoot him? Wait in the car, call for back up and arrest him later?

Because that is not what an officer is supposed to do. In the mind of an officer who was just attacked this is now a very dangerous criminal. If he was attempting to take an officers gun what else might he try to do. We already know that Wilson was indeed aware that this was also a Robbery Suspect. You can't let him out of your sight. Officers aren't paid to do their job "Only if safe".

When do you realize that brown is aggressive? Well before he gets his arm in the car? Wind up the window lock the door and call for back up before there is even a struggle?

You realize he is aggressive when he charges the opening door and attacks an officer through the window. Do you really think if someone was attacking you through your window you'd be able to roll it up? Most windows are automatic now and the regulators have pressure sensors to prevent people from getting arms/fingers rolled up in them.

What do you guys think about this stuff?

I think you have no clue.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Everything you just bolded supports what I said. You are the one who is unreasonable and your predetermined bias shows through. He was stopping, stutter stepping, feign running etc. You have no idea when or if he charged during that period of time. Ultimately at some point he decided to do a full charge.

I put "taunt" in quotations because that is what he was doing.

"What you going to do about it?"
"You're too much of a pussy to shoot me!"
"# what you have to say"
Stutter Stepping
Using his arms in a threatening/"attitude" manner.

Those are all forms of intimidation and taunting.

taunt
tônt/Submit
noun
1.
a remark made in order to anger, wound, or provoke someone.
synonyms: jeer, jibe, sneer, insult, barb, catcall; More
verb
verb: taunt; 3rd person present: taunts; past tense: taunted; past participle: taunted; gerund or present participle: taunting
1.
provoke or challenge (someone) with insulting remarks.

Source

And

Handwritten Testimony

The unidentified witness wrote that the 18-year-old Brown “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.”

So obviously the Kid didn't just turn around and start leisurely strolling.

Wilson said he was running at him the whole time. Wilson also said that he didn't slow down. He said he flinched a couple of times. He said something about "bulking up" which I don't know what that's supposed to mean, and running at him some more. Where you get that this supports your narrative is beyond me. Also, Wilson never said Brown was charging at him and specifically said running. You are mixing testimony with random statements that you heard.

So, to support your narrative that Wilson was taunted by Brown while Brown was moving towards him (after running from the vehicle), you cite things that Wilson says Brown said to him back at the vehicle. Clearly you hadn't looked at the testimony before making such claims, which you cannot support. You are now moving goalposts.

You are the one fitting testimony and evidence into your narrative. You fit my opinions into your preconceived notions of what they are. For example, I do not feel that Wilson murdered Brown. Oh look, you are wrong. You keep stating my bias and opinion when you do not even know what they are. What else did you ascribe to me?

Oh right, that I thought there needed to be at least 9 grand jury members to NOT indict. You were wrong then. You continue to be wrong. You are the one with biases and preconceived opinions.

You are aware that this unidentified witness with her handwritten account also contained the N-word and the whole reason for being there being to see what 'they' were like was considered suspect by the jury, right? Oh wait, no you aren't, because it fits your narrative and you didn't bother to look beyond that. Just like with the "unanimous" jury decision.
Some Ferguson Eyewitnesses Clearly Made Up Their Statements

Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

I thought you read the witness testimony, there were both verbal and handwritten witnesses who described a charge...I linked one of them above. Again, you entered this subjectively and that is never a good thing in a case like this.

I'm not sure it is worth spending the effort responding to all this crap you are bringing up that is wrong. It is apparent that you will just type more of it. You are acting more and more like a troll with every post.

a reply to: Greven

The only time I referred to 9 of 12 was when quoting you because I had misread your post, I had already described earlier in the thread how it worked, you just don't do well at reading comprehension, or based on this thread, comprehension in general. Considering I ADMITTED I misread you and apologized for that...

In any case, beyond your attempt to obfuscate.

Bulking up is another term for "Bowing up" or to "Bow up" at someone. It is used in the South often and to a lesser extent in the mid west.

As far as using the N word, you do realize that African Americans use this term to refer to each other quite often correct? However, I like that you've decided that if testimony doesn't agree with you it's either fabricated or racist...

I know I am not the only one who can tell you have a predetermined narrative for what happened. Nobody moved the goal posts. I included taunts from the beginning of the altercation, as well as after he had ran and turned. They are both needed in context to determine that Brown was obviously acting in a very provocative manner. Terms like Stutter Stepping and Bulk Up both indicated that he was using his body language to intimidate. If you don't see that then you are blinded by your own personal view of what happened.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: amazing



Let's break your post down:

You don't fight someone while sitting in a car. You have no leverage or movement.

Wilson did not initiate the fight from his vehicle. He was attempting to exit his vehicle when brown charged the door and attacked Wilson through the window.

If it's a fight and shots fired and Brown is that scary. You don't get out of the car unless you realize that you probably will have to shoot him? Wait in the car, call for back up and arrest him later?

Because that is not what an officer is supposed to do. In the mind of an officer who was just attacked this is now a very dangerous criminal. If he was attempting to take an officers gun what else might he try to do. We already know that Wilson was indeed aware that this was also a Robbery Suspect. You can't let him out of your sight. Officers aren't paid to do their job "Only if safe".

When do you realize that brown is aggressive? Well before he gets his arm in the car? Wind up the window lock the door and call for back up before there is even a struggle?

You realize he is aggressive when he charges the opening door and attacks an officer through the window. Do you really think if someone was attacking you through your window you'd be able to roll it up? Most windows are automatic now and the regulators have pressure sensors to prevent people from getting arms/fingers rolled up in them.

What do you guys think about this stuff?

I think you have no clue.

that is false by wilsons statments to the reporter he grabbed browns arm while he was sitting down before even trying to exit the car. it is found in the media interview he gave after the decision and may also be in court docs.

a reply to: raymundoko

if you care for facts then by the post you have been engaged in it has been shown that wilsons statments to the gj do not add up and that tells us that we can not really accept any of the rest of the gj findings. the reason is because the false statments are covering the most crucial time in the event.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: amazing



Let's break your post down:

You don't fight someone while sitting in a car. You have no leverage or movement.

Wilson did not initiate the fight from his vehicle. He was attempting to exit his vehicle when brown charged the door and attacked Wilson through the window.

If it's a fight and shots fired and Brown is that scary. You don't get out of the car unless you realize that you probably will have to shoot him? Wait in the car, call for back up and arrest him later?

Because that is not what an officer is supposed to do. In the mind of an officer who was just attacked this is now a very dangerous criminal. If he was attempting to take an officers gun what else might he try to do. We already know that Wilson was indeed aware that this was also a Robbery Suspect. You can't let him out of your sight. Officers aren't paid to do their job "Only if safe".

When do you realize that brown is aggressive? Well before he gets his arm in the car? Wind up the window lock the door and call for back up before there is even a struggle?

You realize he is aggressive when he charges the opening door and attacks an officer through the window. Do you really think if someone was attacking you through your window you'd be able to roll it up? Most windows are automatic now and the regulators have pressure sensors to prevent people from getting arms/fingers rolled up in them.

What do you guys think about this stuff?

I think you have no clue.

that is false by wilsons statments to the reporter he grabbed browns arm while he was sitting down before even trying to exit the car. it is found in the media interview he gave after the decision and may also be in court docs.

Nope. Not in court docs. This is twice you've used Wilson's media interview as your source without being specific. So where in the interview does he say he grabbed Brown BEFORE Brown did anything?

a reply to: raymundoko

Sweet, personal attacks now. You're no longer worth responding to.

Good day and don't bother me again.

a reply to: Greven

Personal attacks? What are you talking about???

Saying your comprehension of the posts is lacking is not a personal attack, it is an observation based on the fact you don't seem to fully understand what people say to you.

Calling you dumb or degenerate would be a personal attack, but it is fairly obvious you are quite smart.

Edit: You also said I was wrong about you thinking Wilson murdered Brown...so what exactly do you think? You obviously don't think he was justified to shoot brown, that means you think brown was murdered...or perhaps I am confused about the legal definition of murder. (Rhetorical, I'm not.)

a reply to: deadeyedick

Um, you haven't read any of the GJ records have you?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: raymundoko

Sweet, personal attacks now. You're no longer worth responding to.

Good day and don't bother me again.

For what it's worth, I don't think he was attacking you Greven. But I don't think you're blind to other alternatives either. I think you have a slant to your view, but I think your slant is that it all just doesn't add up for you. You're by far the most informed and rational person I've debated on here, even going so far as to take a step back and incorporate some of the things I had to say into your own hypotheses. I devoutly hope this doesn't mean you've checked out

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: nenothtu
The grand jury established the distance from the turn-around point at 48 feet and the first bloodstains at 21-22feet from Brown's body. We can assume that to be accurate, as they built this based on crime scene evidence and several witnesses. Wilson's Testimony doesn't indicate that he immediately started firing at Brown as Brown came towards him, so we can probably assume Brown didn't travel the full 48 feet in 6.57 seconds.

Thanks for the link - it assures we are on the same page.

The statement specifically mentions one stride before the shooting starts. It further says "As he is coming towards me", but does not mention whether there are more strides before the shooting starts, of if that stride was enough to establish travel and direction. It just doesn't say, so the number of strides beyond "one" before the shooting starts is purely conjectural.The distance traveled during the shooting could have been anything from 22 feet to about 45 feet, allowing 3 feet as the stride for a 6 foot man.

Even if Brown did travel that distance, that puts his speed at 7 feet per second - a jog, at best. An average human runs around 20 feet per second. It is a vastly different number.

I can only speak for myself, from my own experience here, but continuing to move at any pace, whether a jog or a brisk walk or even a slow deliberate walk - especially after issuing an order to halt and get down - would be enough for me to conclude I was being advanced upon, and act accordingly. I've actually been in that situation, and know how I would react and what I would conclude. If you want the details of that event, I can U2U them, but I won't put it here, to avoid distractions. I'll just say the personalities involved were different, it was handled differently, and I didn't have to actually shoot anyone that time - but it was close.

Given Wilson's testimony, I don't see any bobbing and weaving. Wilson even testified that Brown was running at him like he wasn't there. He would have said if he was moving back and forth, and we know from the autopsy results that there is a steady pattern up Brown's right side. It is unlikely that the scenario you describe happened. Wilson keeps describing Brown as running or coming towards him. At one point he says "bulking up" but I don't know what on Earth that is supposed to mean - does that mean he slowed? Stopped? Kept going? No idea - and neither the prosecutors nor the jurors asked him to clarify, but he never says Brown paused - when he is talking about pauses, he is referring to the pauses in firing his weapon.

"Bulking up" means gathering one's self for an assault. Synonyms are "bowing up" and "chest puffing". It hasn't much to do with the travel accomplished at that instant, and can be done stationary or in motion, or anything in between. The full sentence is "At this point it looked like he was 20 almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it 21 was making him mad that I'm shooting at him." One "runs through" shots by bobbing and weaving, making one's self a harder to hit target. That action may or may not have been implied by Wilson, but was not specified or clarified either way. What's left to guesswork there illustrates difference in perspectives - I'm evaluating the statement through the lens of my own experience, and you are doing the same through the lens of yours. Without further clarifications, we can't say which it was. What I CAN say is that bobbing and weaving don't matter, really - the continued advance, in whatever manner, DOES, though.

We are not entirely uncertain, but it is uncertain whether or not some injuries were made by a bullet entering and reentering - an arm shot that may have struck the chest afterwards and a graze or two. Dr. Baden appeared to testify that he was now fairly certain that 7 shots had struck Brown. In his statement to the media back in August, it was 6. Therefore, I went with the minimum of 6.

Fair enough.

Wilson testifies that Brown was running at him. As you can see, that doesn't really fit. The only person who introduces the term "charging" is the prosecutor:

Prosecutor: All right. You said when he's coming back at you with his hand, right hand in his waistband and kind of charging, that's when you fired the last shots?
Wilson: Yes, ma'am.

I don't see where Wilson says brown was "running" at him, only where he was continuing to advance. The closest I can find are page 228, line 12 "l2 he's still coming at me, he hadn't slowed down." and page 228, line 20 "20 almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it", neither of which says Brown WAS "running". If you have a reference to Wilson's claim that Brown was running, I'll be happy to look at it - just cite the page and line.

EDIT: Never mind, I found it - page 227, line 13.

There were two stopping shots. One went through his forehead, through his eye socket destroying his eye, through his jaw, and into his collarbone. The other went through the top of his skull, down and rightward. They were separated by at least half a second. I do not like that.

I can understand why you don't like that. I've seen some awful things over time, none of which are appropriate to recount here, but I will say that humans can be amazingly resilient in dire adversity, and adrenaline can cover a multitude of damages for at least a few seconds. They may not (or sometimes MAY) survive the trauma of the instant, but sometimes don't even slow down when the adrenaline is in the driver's seat. In other words, that .53 second gap between shots doesn't surprise me, but I can see why it would surprise and trouble you.

a reply to: nenothtu

That's what I was saying in my previous post. He is described as stutter stepping, bowing up, arms being used in a taunting manner etc, but never as running, just advancing. Based on testimony if he did charge it was once he was closer to Wilson. In fact, I've even said that from a distance and with momentum him falling forward might even be construed as a charge to a witness.

The descriptions of how he was acting before and after turning is important as it shows the manner in which he may have been advancing. Probably methodically in a taunting manner. (e.g. pauses to "bow up", make gestures with his arm and " stutter step".

Sorry, I think I ought to step away from this thread for a bit. take a "mental health day" or something of that nature. The discussion is bringing old memories to the fore, which may adversely affect my objectivity, so I'll be out for a bit.

Sounds to me like a lot of you guys just buy any LEOs story no matter what.

It's never wrong to ask questions.

As was said above...Wilson initiated contact from within his cruiser. That's not a smart idea.

The police in this country are already trained. It just needs to be better. Instead of sending millions of dollars in armed vehicles to police departments, lets train them instead. That's where the money would come from. But in Wilson's case it wasn't about martial arts, it was about smart engagement of an aggressive male. Taking it further. It was about how a police department handles community relations during a shooting. Fail on both counts.

In fact, I know for a fact if a police force came to my dojo and wanted to talk to me about training on a reduced budget that me and several other instructors in several different arts would be all for it. It would be a way to give back to the community. I'm talking about seriously good arts like Kempo, JiuJitsu and Filipino Martial Arts...maybe even for free. Like monthly training seminar. But no...that makes to much sense. You guys would rather complain and disparage people from bringing up suggestions and asking questions.

Pathetic.

a reply to: amazing

Looks to me like a few of us look at evidence in its totality instead of picking and choosing what we look at and forming opinions from there.

If every department had dojos around that were willing to provide classes to dozens or hundreds of officers, they would be great. There's any number of other issues that would have to be worked out, though. Officers would have to be paid since its training. That's overtime. There's working out shifts and class times. It's not just as simple as saying hey this guy will train us for free, let's go do it.

It's a valid suggestion, and sounds like a genuine offer. It's just not that simple though. And at the end of the day, officers are not there to engage in lengthy hand to hand combat. There's still a large potential for litigation (well officer smith is a black belt why couldn't he have subdued the complainant without any strikes or joint manipulation?).

I don't think anybody ran your idea down. I just don't think it's as feasible as you do.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: amazing

Looks to me like a few of us look at evidence in its totality instead of picking and choosing what we look at and forming opinions from there.

If every department had dojos around that were willing to provide classes to dozens or hundreds of officers, they would be great. There's any number of other issues that would have to be worked out, though. Officers would have to be paid since its training. That's overtime. There's working out shifts and class times. It's not just as simple as saying hey this guy will train us for free, let's go do it.

It's a valid suggestion, and sounds like a genuine offer. It's just not that simple though. And at the end of the day, officers are not there to engage in lengthy hand to hand combat. There's still a large potential for litigation (well officer smith is a black belt why couldn't he have subdued the complainant without any strikes or joint manipulation?).

I don't think anybody ran your idea down. I just don't think it's as feasible as you do.

But that's just one small part of what I'm saying. I understand that you have to put someone down if your life is in danger and I understand there are logistics but we, federally, spend millions upon millions on our police forces in the way of grants and programs and sometimes direct funding and a lot of it is wasted.

We also need to look at why there are riots in Ferguson and what Wilson could have done differently. Maybe I would have done the same thing as wilson but probably not. But there should be questions. Also, Ferguson blew up not because brown was a beloved Saint, Wilson was evil and everyone wanted free TVs.. no it blew up because of the tensions between the community and the police force that were already there. Easy to see. Pretty easy to solve. LEO's don't get to be arrogant bullys just because they get guns. They are there to serve and PROTECT. If they started acting like that, there wouldn't be nearly as many problems or as nearly as bad PR lately as LEOs are getting.

Also, we the public, just need to know that LEOs aren't above the law. We just need to know that. Are they or aren't they?

a reply to: amazing

You bring up valid points. But I'll point out that like any other profession, there are good cops and bad cops. 9 times out of 10 if a good cop does something good, it's never reported on. Unless somebody takes a picture of it and tweets it or puts it on facebook, nobody particularly cares. Cops are easy to bash because by and large, anybody can say whatever they want about LEOs, and those LEOs will still answer the next call for help.

The flip side is that bad cops get all the headlines. Good cops that may not have made the best decision in a situation get all the attention. I won't even use this case as an example. I'll use the NYPD rookie that shot a guy in a dark stairwell a couple weeks ago. There was no intent on the rookie's part to do anything at all to that guy. He made a terrible decision and it got headlines.

Not all LEOs are saints, but not all LEOs are evil either, despite what many on ATS choose to believe.

Training can always be better. It can always be improved. Some departments are better than others. I will whole heartedly agree that a lot of money is wasted. But the end result of that is that good officers wind up going and spending their own money to get themselves what they need.

Ferguson is a town rife with racial tension, and it put what was already a bad situation into a whole other realm. It goes back decades. Nobody did much to address it. The chief of police is an inept buffoon who perpetuated the problem. It wouldn't have been an easy solution, and certainly won't be now. I think by and large the whole house of cards needs to come down.

a reply to: amazing

Because some of us look at evidence we buy any LEO's story? That's a laugh.

Again, Wilson did not initiate physical contact from within his cruiser. He rolled his window down and asked some individuals to get on the sidewalk. When he attempted to exit his vehicle the door was slammed on him.

An officer rolling down a window and speaking to someone is perfectly normal, especially if it is for something as petty as jay walking.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: amazing



Because some of us look at evidence we buy any LEO's story? That's a laugh.



Again, Wilson did not initiate physical contact from within his cruiser. He rolled his window down and asked some individuals to get on the sidewalk. When he attempted to exit his vehicle the door was slammed on him.



An officer rolling down a window and speaking to someone is perfectly normal, especially if it is for something as petty as jay walking.

That is not accurate. You spipped several steps in the evolvution of events that led to violence.