Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields
Too much of this thread involves people "filling in the blanks". My only point is to start with the foundational piece of what we can accept: the Grand Jury recommendation (though, we could, if we chose, pick that apart as well... but you have to start somewhere) and from that basis, highlight the fact much remains unknown (blank).
The GJ was asked to see if the evidence (as presented) in the matter was sufficient to document probable cause that one of several crimes (resulting in death occurred). Their findings, which were merely recommendations to the DA (and reflect the way the DA presented the case) were that there was not sufficient evidence to support probable cause and thus no charges should be filed. They may no other determination. They did not try the case nor challenge the evidence.
So, as a result of the GJ activity, we can continue with the PRESUMPTION of innocence of criminal wrong doing for Officer Wilson. Any other conclusion one wishes to come to is pure conjecture (though granted, some conjecture might be supportable) or otherwise speculative. In making your determinations as to what happened, you may think you are right, but the truth is, there is chance you are not.
While the GJ clearing Wilson of criminal wrongdoing may have sanctioned his legal right to kill Brown, it did not give him the moral kill Brown (that is to be "litigated" in the eternal court). The GJ clearing of Wilson might have relieved him of criminal culpability, it did not relieve him of responsibility (that will likely be litigated in civil court).
There are far more questions that remain..... those of you that pretend to know the answers to those questions are pretending or are deluded. Its ok to have an opinion; just respect the fact that your opinion can be wrong.
Wilson gets the Presumption of Innocence.... but, let me remind you that OJ Simpson also enjoys the presumption of innocence in the death of another Brown..... If we respect system of justice and the rule of law, both are equally valid.
Again, the only "FACT" about this case is the GJ determined that Wilson was not criminally culpable. Everything else is simply opinion.
Last edited by upsideguy; 12-03-14 at 12:41 AM.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.
Tasers and Mace are called "nonlethal weapons" but in reality they can and have killed people.
1) They are basically "please don't sue me" weapons. In other words cops can use them before shooting someone and be able to honestly say "I did everything possible before shooting".
2) Against large people tasers and mace are largely ineffective. Especially against someone of Brown's size and youth.
Against someone small they are often TOO effective (deadly or highly injurious).
3) Finally, because of extremely short range, both require officers to allow suspects to close with them to literal knife fighting range which many depts. counsel against.
Basically if they are close enough to mace, they are close enough to grab your gun.