• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown resigns

Really?? Then I stand corrected. Some analysts on CNN said he was within a few months of being vested in his pension, so I foolishly accepted that as fact. Well, that and the fact that the guy himself looks like a doughy, middle-aged guy. Thanks for the information.

Most public employee defined benefit pension plans have a vesting schedule such that after five years of service an employee will become eligible to receive 20% or 25% of the full pension benefit, and for every year of service thereafter the percentage of the whole which the employee is entitled to increases until the employee is fully eligible to receive 100% of the benefit after 15 or 20 years of service.

Since we can be pretty sure that Wilson wasn't approaching the point where he was fully vested it's probably a safe assumption that the guy you were listening to was saying that he was a few months shy of meeting the minimum vesting service requirement.

Wilson probably lost out on a monthly pension payment of somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 (give or take).
 
The GJ chose not to charge him. They did not find that he did anything criminally wrong (or, there wasn't enough evidence such).... no determination has ever been made that Wilson did nothing wrong. You can say that he did nothing criminal; but you really have no basis to say he did nothing wrong.

They decided not to indict Wilso, because they determined that he didn't commit a crime. That means he's innocent.
 
The entire Ferguson police department should resign. Who would want to work for that department now?
 
They decided not to indict Wilso, because they determined that he didn't commit a crime. That means he's innocent.

Don't confuse not being deemed criminally culpable (which is the only thing the GJ determined -- not to press charges) with the idea that he is lilly white. He has not moved beyond the questioning as to whether he handled the situation correctly and competently.

In actuality, The GJ only decided not to prosecute. They make no determination of innocence; they only weigh the evidence to pursue prosecution. None of us really know the actual conclusion of the GJ (they might have concluded there might have been criminal wrong-doing, but just too much "he said - she said" to ever be successful.)

Wilson is only innocent based upon the presumption of innocence ..... which, BTW, is the same presumption that needs to be extended to Brown, for the same reason.
 
Last edited:
imo, the shoplifting has little to nothing to do with the incident. Brown was not shot because he shoplifted cigars.

Of course not. I have been trying to divorce what happened in the convenience store with the shooting throughout this entire thread. Other people keep bringing up the convenience store events to define him as a thug and, because he was a thug, he somehow is worthy of being shot. I have been trying to pierce that twisted logic all long.
 
OK let's forget completely what happened at the store. Brown was walking in traffic and would not leave the street, then he attacked the officer in his truck.

Was that OK for him to do, or did that show his mindset that he would kill the officer given the chance?

Wilson did not give him a second chance to do that. You cannot blame him for that.

People really do not know exactly what happened in the street.... there is a lot of he said / she said. We only know that an unarmed man had an altercation of some type with a police officer and then ended up dead. We also know that a GJ looked at all the evidence and made the recommendation that there should not be a criminal prosecution. We don't know how rigorous the GJ process really was; we only know its outcome. EVERYTHING else is speculation or reasoned speculation.
 
Of course not. I have been trying to divorce what happened in the convenience store with the shooting throughout this entire thread. Other people keep bringing up the convenience store events to define him as a thug and, because he was a thug, he somehow is worthy of being shot. I have been trying to pierce that twisted logic all long.

imo, he was not shot for being a thug in the past. He was shot because he threatened the LEO by his actions.
 
Don't confuse not being deemed criminally culpable (which is the only thing the GJ determined -- not to press charges) with the idea that he is lilly white. He has not moved beyond the questioning as to whether he handled the situation correctly and competently.

In actuality, The GJ only decided not to prosecute. They make no determination of innocence; they only weigh the evidence to pursue prosecution. None of us really know the actual conclusion of the GJ (they might have concluded there might have been criminal wrong-doing, but just too much "he said - she said" to ever be successful.)



Yeah, he's lilly white, for two reasons: 1) he has a spotless record and 2) he is innocent, until proven guilty.

Let me put it another way: he hasn't been charged with a crime, so he's as innocent as innocent can get.

Wilson is only innocent based upon the presumption of innocence ..... which, BTW, is the same presumption that needs to be extended to Brown, for the same reason.

Brown isn't on trial and never will be. Wilson is the one on trial and the verdict is that he's innocent of a crime.

Be honest and tell us if you were one of the ones going on about, "I'll accept what the grand jury says".
 
An unarmed youth was shot to death, and his shooter has walked away with half a million dollars fighting fund donated by angry old white men.
 
An unarmed youth was shot to death, and his shooter has walked away with half a million dollars fighting fund donated by angry old white men.

Or, if one chooses to accept reality: a street hood assaulted a cop, with the intention of taking his life and was killed in the process.

Please, stop making it like Wilson pulled up and shot some 12 y/o that was on his way to maw-maw's house, to eat some apple pie.
 
That's really a shame. The guy has been on the force nearly 20 years, and if he resigns now he loses his entire pension. Since forensic evidence proves the veracity of his account of what happened, his life has been destroyed, martyred on the altar of presumptive racism. Really sad.

Although I think that the grand jury decision was mostly right, I am skeptical that in the case of Michael Brown, the officer handled the situation as well as he should have. How does a professional peace officer go from making an ID on a suspect that stole some cigars to turning him into swiss cheese? I fully realize that Michael Brown attacked him... but why did the officer put himself into that position? Why didn't he wait for backup? All I am saying is on that fateful day, it seems like he didn't handle the situation as he was trained to do and made some critical mistakes.
 
This cop is a hero in many pockets of America. I see him landing on his feet and doing okay. Hell, he could ALWAYS move to Texas. They would love to have him on the force.
 
This cop is a hero in many pockets of America. I see him landing on his feet and doing okay. Hell, he could ALWAYS move to Texas. They would love to have him on the force.

There are plenty of cities here in Texas that would welcome the likes of Wilson on the force. Vidor, Texas comes to mind.
 
There are plenty of cities here in Texas that would welcome the likes of Wilson on the force. Vidor, Texas comes to mind.

You mean, "Don't let the sun set on your black ass," Vidor, TX? Yeah, they would love him there for sure.

I used to work offshore with some roughnecks from Vidor. Only, we called it "Vee-Door." Oilfield joke. You wouldn't understand.
 
People really do not know exactly what happened in the street.... there is a lot of he said / she said. We only know that an unarmed man had an altercation of some type with a police officer and then ended up dead. We also know that a GJ looked at all the evidence and made the recommendation that there should not be a criminal prosecution. We don't know how rigorous the GJ process really was; we only know its outcome. EVERYTHING else is speculation or reasoned speculation.

Do you reject the evidence of Brown attacking the officer in his truck and firing off 2 rounds inside the vehicle?

Brown was shot at that point. I believe there was gun shot residue on Browns hand.

I you accept this evidence, then we do know what happened in the street.
 
Great lesson out there for everyone.

If you're a cop and you shoot a thug who attacked you, if he happens to be black, you're done for.
In other words, cops should let blacks get off the hook for anything or else they'll lose their job.

Blacks seem to be a privileged class in the USA these days over all other racial groups. Just like the nobility of old, if you touch them or do anything to them, your ass is on the line.

I think this ^ mindset is a big part of the problem that exists in the Ferguson PD and others like it.
  • I struggle with the fact that Wilson made a decision not to carry a taser because it's cumbersome. You can get used to using a taser and it stops being so cumbersome. You get used to it and become efficient with it.
  • I struggle with the statement that Wilson made regarding his mace. I understand why he didn't use it while he was in the vehicle but he wasn't in the vehicle when he killed Brown. He had an opportunity to apprehend someone using tactics he'd been trained in but he didn't do that.

I think the value Wilson placed on the human life in Ferguson is reflected, somewhat, in those decisions.
 
Although I think that the grand jury decision was mostly right, I am skeptical that in the case of Michael Brown, the officer handled the situation as well as he should have. How does a professional peace officer go from making an ID on a suspect that stole some cigars to turning him into swiss cheese? I fully realize that Michael Brown attacked him... but why did the officer put himself into that position? Why didn't he wait for backup? All I am saying is on that fateful day, it seems like he didn't handle the situation as he was trained to do and made some critical mistakes.

Without video evidence, we're left with the forensics, the officer's statements, and conflicting witness testimony, much of which was weeded out as witnesses admitted they hadn't really seen what they told the tv cameras they'd seen, along with other witnesses who backed up the officer with statements that never wavered.

1.) Michael Brown had parts of his body inside the officer's car, assaulted the officer with one or more punches to the head, and had his hand on the officer's gun when it was fired inside the car. The placement of Brown's blood inside the car, along with contact gunshot residue on Brown's hand, proved that.

2.) Wilson had called for backup, and his training required him to keep the suspect in sight, repeatedly demanding that he drop to the ground. Blood and other forensic evidence proved that Michael Brown ran about 100 feet, then turned and began to move back toward Wilson. Then and only then did the gunfire begin. The final shot took place when Brown, who outweighed Wilson by nearly 100 pounds, was 8 to 10 feet away. There was no time for backup to arrive before the shooting began, and the officer's shots were fired as he realized that Brown was capable of killing him if he reached him. It was self-defense.

Wilson had approximately 15 seconds to make every decision he made. It's easy for all of us out here to say, "why didn't he just taze him"... the kid was too far away for a taser, assuming Wilson had one, when he exited the car, then turned and headed back too fast to change weapons; "why did he fire so many times"... he's not a great shot, this was the first time Wilson had ever fired his weapon on duty and the kid was moving fast; "why didn't he just let the kid get away"... as a police officer, it's Wilson's job not to do that. And on and on. It's a whole 'nother ballgame to be there and realize if you make the wrong choice, you have seconds to live.

This isn't the Martin/Zimmerman case, where a swaggering civilian provoked a completely unnecessary confrontation with a young, slightly-built kid. This was a police officer facing a massive opponent who was, in the officer and some witnesses words, "charging" him. The grand jury only had to find "probable cause" to indict, which is the lowest possible standard. They couldn't find that, because the evidence didn't even support the lowest possible standard.

Personally, I wonder where all the outrage and pickets were when Fullerton, Calif., police officers... 3-6 of them... surrounded a mentally ill (white) man, tased him three times after he was already on the ground, then proceeded to beat him so badly every bone in his face was broken, his black/blue face was swollen to the size of a beachball, and he died within hours. Those officers went to trial... and were acquitted. That is the kind of blatant, outrageous police brutality abuse and failure of justice that makes me want to scream and puke. Not the Michael Brown case. Assault a cop, try to get a cop's gun, and finally charge a cop with his weapon drawn... well, you're going down. Period.
 
Do you reject the evidence of Brown attacking the officer in his truck and firing off 2 rounds inside the vehicle?

Brown was shot at that point. I believe there was gun shot residue on Browns hand.

I you accept this evidence, then we do know what happened in the street.

I think there is consensus on what happened in the car. If it ended there, there would likely not be an issue. Unfortunately, he was shot and killed away from the car. That is the element of controversy. No one really knows how / why he was actually killed or why he needed to be killed.
 
Without video evidence, we're left with the forensics, the officer's statements, and conflicting witness testimony, much of which was weeded out as witnesses admitted they hadn't really seen what they told the tv cameras they'd seen, along with other witnesses who backed up the officer with statements that never wavered.

1.) Michael Brown had parts of his body inside the officer's car, assaulted the officer with one or more punches to the head, and had his hand on the officer's gun when it was fired inside the car. The placement of Brown's blood inside the car, along with contact gunshot residue on Brown's hand, proved that.

2.) Wilson had called for backup, and his training required him to keep the suspect in sight, repeatedly demanding that he drop to the ground. Blood and other forensic evidence proved that Michael Brown ran about 100 feet, then turned and began to move back toward Wilson. Then and only then did the gunfire begin. The final shot took place when Brown, who outweighed Wilson by nearly 100 pounds, was 8 to 10 feet away. There was no time for backup to arrive before the shooting began, and the officer's shots were fired as he realized that Brown was capable of killing him if he reached him. It was self-defense.

Wilson had approximately 15 seconds to make every decision he made. It's easy for all of us out here to say, "why didn't he just taze him"... the kid was too far away for a taser, assuming Wilson had one, when he exited the car, then turned and headed back too fast to change weapons; "why did he fire so many times"... he's not a great shot, this was the first time Wilson had ever fired his weapon on duty and the kid was moving fast; "why didn't he just let the kid get away"... as a police officer, it's Wilson's job not to do that. And on and on. It's a whole 'nother ballgame to be there and realize if you make the wrong choice, you have seconds to live.

This isn't the Martin/Zimmerman case, where a swaggering civilian provoked a completely unnecessary confrontation with a young, slightly-built kid. This was a police officer facing a massive opponent who was, in the officer and some witnesses words, "charging" him. The grand jury only had to find "probable cause" to indict, which is the lowest possible standard. They couldn't find that, because the evidence didn't even support the lowest possible standard.

Personally, I wonder where all the outrage and pickets were when Fullerton, Calif., police officers... 3-6 of them... surrounded a mentally ill (white) man, tased him three times after he was already on the ground, then proceeded to beat him so badly every bone in his face was broken, his black/blue face was swollen to the size of a beachball, and he died within hours. Those officers went to trial... and were acquitted. That is the kind of blatant, outrageous police brutality abuse and failure of justice that makes me want to scream and puke. Not the Michael Brown case. Assault a cop, try to get a cop's gun, and finally charge a cop with his weapon drawn... well, you're going down. Period.

/double like Di. Best post in this whole thread.

I think Upsideguy and others in this thread need to read this.
 
...they have an important job to do, but nobody really likes them.

I like cops. I think cops are awesome. Yes, some not so great cops, but I will always come down on the side of the cops. They do an incredible job, see horrific things and are decent human beings having to deal with the scum of society on a daily basis.
 
/double like Di. Best post in this whole thread.

I think Upsideguy and others in this thread need to read this.

They will read this but they will also dismiss it. They don't want to accept we know what happened.
 
I like cops. I think cops are awesome. Yes, some not so great cops, but I will always come down on the side of the cops. They do an incredible job, see horrific things and are decent human beings having to deal with the scum of society on a daily basis.

I bet the not so great cops have saved peoples lives in their line of duty.
 
I think this ^ mindset is a big part of the problem that exists in the Ferguson PD and others like it.
  • I struggle with the fact that Wilson made a decision not to carry a taser because it's cumbersome. You can get used to using a taser and it stops being so cumbersome. You get used to it and become efficient with it.
  • I struggle with the statement that Wilson made regarding his mace. I understand why he didn't use it while he was in the vehicle but he wasn't in the vehicle when he killed Brown. He had an opportunity to apprehend someone using tactics he'd been trained in but he didn't do that.

I think the value Wilson placed on the human life in Ferguson is reflected, somewhat, in those decisions.

It's only a problem to people who refuse to live in reality.
 
Without video evidence, we're left with the forensics, the officer's statements, and conflicting witness testimony, much of which was weeded out as witnesses admitted they hadn't really seen what they told the tv cameras they'd seen, along with other witnesses who backed up the officer with statements that never wavered.

1.) Michael Brown had parts of his body inside the officer's car, assaulted the officer with one or more punches to the head, and had his hand on the officer's gun when it was fired inside the car. The placement of Brown's blood inside the car, along with contact gunshot residue on Brown's hand, proved that.

2.) Wilson had called for backup, and his training required him to keep the suspect in sight, repeatedly demanding that he drop to the ground. Blood and other forensic evidence proved that Michael Brown ran about 100 feet, then turned and began to move back toward Wilson. Then and only then did the gunfire begin. The final shot took place when Brown, who outweighed Wilson by nearly 100 pounds, was 8 to 10 feet away. There was no time for backup to arrive before the shooting began, and the officer's shots were fired as he realized that Brown was capable of killing him if he reached him. It was self-defense.

Wilson had approximately 15 seconds to make every decision he made. It's easy for all of us out here to say, "why didn't he just taze him"... the kid was too far away for a taser, assuming Wilson had one, when he exited the car, then turned and headed back too fast to change weapons; "why did he fire so many times"... he's not a great shot, this was the first time Wilson had ever fired his weapon on duty and the kid was moving fast; "why didn't he just let the kid get away"... as a police officer, it's Wilson's job not to do that. And on and on. It's a whole 'nother ballgame to be there and realize if you make the wrong choice, you have seconds to live.

This isn't the Martin/Zimmerman case, where a swaggering civilian provoked a completely unnecessary confrontation with a young, slightly-built kid. This was a police officer facing a massive opponent who was, in the officer and some witnesses words, "charging" him. The grand jury only had to find "probable cause" to indict, which is the lowest possible standard. They couldn't find that, because the evidence didn't even support the lowest possible standard.

Personally, I wonder where all the outrage and pickets were when Fullerton, Calif., police officers... 3-6 of them... surrounded a mentally ill (white) man, tased him three times after he was already on the ground, then proceeded to beat him so badly every bone in his face was broken, his black/blue face was swollen to the size of a beachball, and he died within hours. Those officers went to trial... and were acquitted. That is the kind of blatant, outrageous police brutality abuse and failure of justice that makes me want to scream and puke. Not the Michael Brown case. Assault a cop, try to get a cop's gun, and finally charge a cop with his weapon drawn... well, you're going down. Period.

Have I told you lately how much I adore you? Your posts on the matter are always sensible and never filled with emotion. Excellent recap of the facts as we know them. Facts are also not filled with emotion.

Multiple likes for this post.
 
/double like Di. Best post in this whole thread.

I think Upsideguy and others in this thread need to read this.

I read it. It is a great closing argument for the defense, but that is all it is. To get to her conclusion, one must weigh some testimony over other testimony, and not consider that there is others things that are unknown. While we appreciate that the testimony she chooses to accept is not inconsistent with the physical evidence, there is conflicting testimony and other explanations that are also not inconsistent with the physical evidence. It advocates a position that may or may not be true, because she takes liberty in filling in the blanks.

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:
Back
Top Bottom