Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 7:27 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:27:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US
Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near
the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence
using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

“Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a
statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force
to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have
discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research,
is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the
case law. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the
state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that
you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn’t comply with the law.”


She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

“As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”

Well what was the difference?

Was it significant to the case?

My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon
and they changed that part.
Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters.
Brown's fatal wound was not in the back..



Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting
the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were
arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there
is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown
while Brown was walking away.

But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every
bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no
indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard.

That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation.

The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected
when she learned of the federal ruling.


Could be. But no attempt was made to explain what the change was and,
when one of the jurors asked if a federal court can over rule a state
statue her answer was basically, "don't worry about it".

That's simply because the change was so miniscule that she brushed it
off.

Oh my gosh, I left out the word 'may'.


The part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 02:09:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 8:42 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:07:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars


The thing that gets me though is that (according to the article) the
attorney for the shop owner said the police were not contacted regarding
a robbery. Yet, the Ferguson police account says they received a report
of the robbery taking place and it involved cigars.

Who's telling the truth? Who called the cops?


Where in the article is a statement by the attorney. How am I missing
this?


You didn't miss it. It's not in the article cited by jps (above).
However, it *is* stated in other sources that the neither the shop owner
or any employee made the call to the police. According to them the call
was made by a customer in the store. Here is one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft


Thank you for clarifying that. You were, apparently, just adding some
words to jps article.

Earlier you said, "...the attorney said...the police were not
contacted regarding a robbery."

But the article says, "...a customer called police."

So apparently the police were contacted regarding 'something' going on
in the store.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 19:53:22 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:34:01 PM UTC-8, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote:
jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

?Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a
statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force
to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have
discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research,
is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the
case law. This doesn?t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they?re called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I?m sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that
you know don?t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn?t comply with the law.?


She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

?As far as you need to know, just don?t worry about that.?

Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start.

BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a
shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And
even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And
witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting,
when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained
that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the
yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that
also.



Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you
"white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

The cop was a complete dick. The kid lost his cool, the cop ****ed up
the altercation in a big way. Didn't call for backup, jumped out of
his car and began shooting even though Brown was fleeing.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

John, you left out one of the main lines:

"While it is difficult to be 100% certain,..."

In other words, the writer tries to sound like an expert witness, but in reality, doesn't have a clue.

Damn, missed it. Thanks.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 01:48:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On 12/2/2014 10:59 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:59:47 -0800, jps wrote:

The cop was a complete dick. The kid lost his cool, the cop ****ed up
the altercation in a big way. Didn't call for backup, jumped out of
his car and began shooting even though Brown was fleeing.

There were 3 autopsies and all 3 agree he was not shot in the back but
don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant.


Doesn't mean Wilson didn't fire at him. He was hit 6 or 7 times.
Wilson fired about 12 rounds. Obviously some missed.


You reckon it was maybe that 150ft kill shot that missed? That would
help the jps story along.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 23:01:47 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:12:15 -0800, jps wrote:

Yup, six times. Now I'm hearing that the final kill shot was from 150
feet away.

Who are you listening to. The GJ testimony, based on the blood drop
evidence is that brown was less than 20 feet away and advancing on
Wilson.

Give him a break. He's 'hearing' this stuff.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 7:31 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:51:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 5:31 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US
Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near
the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence
using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

“Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a
statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force
to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we
have
discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research,
is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the
case law. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the
state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so
that
you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn’t comply with the law.”


She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

“As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”

Well what was the difference?

Was it significant to the case?

My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon
and they changed that part.
Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters.
Brown's fatal wound was not in the back..



Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting
the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were
arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there
is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown
while Brown was walking away.

But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every
bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no
indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard.

That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation.

The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected
when she learned of the federal ruling.

No way, it was a setup all the way. Do the math, he was a white cop, the
kid was black.. There simply is only one way this could go down knowing
the cop is a Klans man and the kid was an Alterboy bringing his granny
to church when he was run down four times and shot thirty times in the
back... I mean, the evidence is there, and I even hear there is a video
tape... Sharpton told me....


Here. Apparently you haven't seen or don't remember this. It doesn't
prove it happened this way but it's an eye witness account that was
apparently dismissed by the DA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU


Photographer must have great ears, or adding words after the fact.


Clara, you really need to work on your comprehension of what you see and
read.

The photographer is not the one who claims he heard Brown say anything.
It was the construction worker who threw his hands up in the air and was
about 50 feet away from Brown. *He* is the one who saw and heard Brown
put his hands in the air and say, "Ok, Ok".

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:30:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/3/2014 7:22 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:37:51 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:50:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 2:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:42:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 2:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:35:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Stealing a box of cigars and shoving the proprietor doesn't justify
getting killed.

===

That is not what got him killed and I think you know that.

What got him killed was trying to grab the cops gun. That is
tantanount to attempted murder and no cop of any color will let that
stand.



I agree if that's what happened. I just don't know what happened
afterwards for sure and neither does anyone else it seems.

My guess is that it initially went down the way the GJ determined it
went and Wilson was justified in at least the first couple of shots
fired. After that the story gets less certain.

As I understand it, the law requires every shot to be justified in a
deadly force situation. Wilson fired off something like 12 total shots.
Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown?

We'll never know for sure. A secret GJ decided.


If I were defending myself, the justification would be, "Is the guy
down? No? Next shot."

I'm thinking a cop would not do a complete analysis of the scenario
before each round. Do you really think such would be required?


I believe the law says that each shot fired must be justified from an
immediate threat to the officer's life. It's not justify it once and
then fire off the whole magazine.

Before you and others jump to the conclusion that I think Wilson's
actions were not justified ... that is not the case. My gut feel is
they probably were. However, there are many conflicts in the witness's
accounts, some of which were discounted and dismissed by the prosecuting
attorney team.

One that stands out in my mind is the video of the two white
construction workers who raised their hands (imitating Brown) during the
shooting and commented that he was surrendering. That video was played
many times by the media but you don't see it much anymore.

My guess is that Wilson was on a roll. Even when Brown was hit and
surrendering Wilson continued to fire. I'm now hearing the kill shot
may have come from 150 feet away.

If so, it's murder.


The 'kill shot *may* have come from 150 feet away'. Luddite says,
"...which one killed Brown?" Now you throw up your *may* crap. Jeeez.

(Did I get it right that time Mr. Dep'ty?)


No Clara, you didn't. "Luddite" never said the kill shot may have come
from 150 feet away.

Check your attributions before you shoot your mouth off. You are
blending comments other people made (jps) with comments I made.

I suspect it's just old age and poor eyesight. If not, it's dishonesty.

The response was to jps.

Read carefully. There is no comma between '150 feet away' (response to
the previous post from jps) and 'Luddite', which would indicate I was
quoting you. Rather, the appropriate sentence reads - Luddite says,
"...which one killed Brown?"

If the blending is too hard for you, maybe it's due to poor age old
eyesight!

--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 7:41 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:17:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 8:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:53:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 3:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:58:52 -0800, jps wrote:

You cannot take a life because it satisfies your ego.

===

Of course not but you can make an arrest when someone assaults you. If
the suspect resists arrest with force that's not ego, that's self
defense. All of this talk about Brown being shot running away is
nonsense. There isn't a shred of evidence to support it.



My biggest question is what happened to the amateur video of the two,
white construction workers who, while watching the shooting, raised
their hands as if imitating Brown and commented that he was surrendering?

Are you saying that while the shooting was taking place someone was
videotaping two white construction workers who seemed to be imitating
Brown? This photographer, with bullets going every which way, was
taping the construction workers?


I'd have my doubts too. Maybe the major media decided it was a bit
farfetched.


In other words another made up story by CNN for maximum ratings, huh?

There you go putting words into another's mouth and then running with
them. Did I mention CNN or maximum ratings?

Here. This is another youtube video that includes some discussion about
it. Decide for yourself if it's real or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMY1R1LLbtQ


See earlier comments.


Dear Clara,

I guess you missed the part where the narration in the video indicated
that the photographer was located in a basement apartment. He grabbed
an iPad or something and started recording through a window shortly
after the first shots were fired.

Sincerely,

Luddite

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/14 7:49 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/3/2014 7:27 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:27:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The
statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US
Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near
the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence
using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

“Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a
statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of
force
to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What
we have
discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our
research,
is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with
the
case law. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that
the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the
state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just
so that
you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a
portion of
that that doesn’t comply with the law.”


She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in
the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

“As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”

Well what was the difference?

Was it significant to the case?

My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon
and they changed that part.
Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters.
Brown's fatal wound was not in the back..



Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting
the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were
arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because
there
is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown
while Brown was walking away.

But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used
every
bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ
for no
indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard.

That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this
situation.

The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected
when she learned of the federal ruling.


Could be. But no attempt was made to explain what the change was and,
when one of the jurors asked if a federal court can over rule a state
statue her answer was basically, "don't worry about it".

That's simply because the change was so miniscule that she brushed it
off.

Oh my gosh, I left out the word 'may'.


The part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant.




I must say it is fun watching you *out* the racists. :)

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 7:58 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:30:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/3/2014 7:22 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:37:51 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:50:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 2:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:42:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 2:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:35:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Stealing a box of cigars and shoving the proprietor doesn't justify
getting killed.

===

That is not what got him killed and I think you know that.

What got him killed was trying to grab the cops gun. That is
tantanount to attempted murder and no cop of any color will let that
stand.



I agree if that's what happened. I just don't know what happened
afterwards for sure and neither does anyone else it seems.

My guess is that it initially went down the way the GJ determined it
went and Wilson was justified in at least the first couple of shots
fired. After that the story gets less certain.

As I understand it, the law requires every shot to be justified in a
deadly force situation. Wilson fired off something like 12 total shots.
Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown?

We'll never know for sure. A secret GJ decided.


If I were defending myself, the justification would be, "Is the guy
down? No? Next shot."

I'm thinking a cop would not do a complete analysis of the scenario
before each round. Do you really think such would be required?


I believe the law says that each shot fired must be justified from an
immediate threat to the officer's life. It's not justify it once and
then fire off the whole magazine.

Before you and others jump to the conclusion that I think Wilson's
actions were not justified ... that is not the case. My gut feel is
they probably were. However, there are many conflicts in the witness's
accounts, some of which were discounted and dismissed by the prosecuting
attorney team.

One that stands out in my mind is the video of the two white
construction workers who raised their hands (imitating Brown) during the
shooting and commented that he was surrendering. That video was played
many times by the media but you don't see it much anymore.

My guess is that Wilson was on a roll. Even when Brown was hit and
surrendering Wilson continued to fire. I'm now hearing the kill shot
may have come from 150 feet away.

If so, it's murder.


The 'kill shot *may* have come from 150 feet away'. Luddite says,
"...which one killed Brown?" Now you throw up your *may* crap. Jeeez.

(Did I get it right that time Mr. Dep'ty?)


No Clara, you didn't. "Luddite" never said the kill shot may have come
from 150 feet away.

Check your attributions before you shoot your mouth off. You are
blending comments other people made (jps) with comments I made.

I suspect it's just old age and poor eyesight. If not, it's dishonesty.

The response was to jps.

Read carefully. There is no comma between '150 feet away' (response to
the previous post from jps) and 'Luddite', which would indicate I was
quoting you. Rather, the appropriate sentence reads - Luddite says,
"...which one killed Brown?"

If the blending is too hard for you, maybe it's due to poor age old
eyesight!


Give me a break.