tvc184

    I know that it wasn't murder. I am shocked that in NY, especially after Ferguson that they didn't at least come out with negligent homicide.   I kind of figured there might be no indictment however one would not have shocked me.    I think no criminal charges as no intent to kill. There is reckless forms of homicide but if the officer was running a red light and kills someone it might be more appropriate. The difference is that this very large guy was resisting.    Officers need to stop that resisting as quick as possible or something like this below will happen. These officers were lucky that the guy wasn't armed or got a hold of one of them or they might have been in real trouble. I think it shows a couple of Taser hits that doesn't take him down.   So one officer used a choke hold which is a taught maneuver or was taught as a legitimate use of force. If done correctly it should not cause any injuries other than maybe a bruise. My main question would be, could they show exactly what killed him? Was it the officer with the lateral vascular neck restraint (fancy name for a choke hold) or the other officers on him or was he having severe breathing difficulties due to his weight and the intensity of the struggle?    Here is what happens when you try to baby them. These officers might not have been hurt but they could have been killed.      [Hidden Content]  

    Why?   I don't know MO law but inciting is a disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace type of crime. In TX law standing in public and shouting threats or profanity that tends to cause a disturbance or standing in a crowded theater and yelling fire, you don't have to prove who reacted or if anyone reacted. In the law you see the phrase "tends to incite", not "causes another person to act".    At the very least, now many people had to see him even if what you say was a requirement? Let's say 300 people saw his tirade and 15 of them went out to loot and burn. Is there some legal requirement to show how many people acted on his behalf? I highly doubt it. 

I think they got them off of that shrimp boat in the background.

Dead link for me.

[Hidden Content]   Care to look at the grand jury documents including all witness statements with names redacted?   Well here they are. 

He might be a good chief and he might be a bad chief but he just spoke a mouthful of the truth.    I see that the union just took a vote of no confidence in him because he fired an officer for shooting and killing a guy when he did not follow department policy. 

I was going to post that yesterday but held back.

  They are making maximum profits now. My premiums went up and my copay for generic meds went from $15 to $35. Where are all the saving? Yes I know the slugs that could not afford insurance are now paying less but the actual middle class working stiffs and getting slammed. My wife just got her generic pills filled and I looked at the total printed out and the drug company is charging the same amount as before. The difference is that the insurance company has upped their rates but dropped their coverage.    I keep waiting for this big Obamacare lessening but I think it is all a scam. I sure would like to be wrong and my insurance started dropping and my coverage back to where it was but I am not going to take a deep breath and hold it while I wait for this claimed benefit to come around.

And I see that Chuck Schumer who is one of the leading Democrat senators, today came out and said the Dems made a mistake pushing Obamacare and ignoring the middle class.   Hmm............ 

Well, when the new congress takes over in January and the bills start hitting the desk, we will see which party says "no". 

      Even Dr. Michael Baden that testified for the family and did the second autopsy made a statement on Fox News after the grand jury decision was announced. What he said was technically the truth. There were three options from the way the bullets struck Brown. He could have been surrendering, he could have been lunging at the officer or he could have been shot and falling forward. From only the bullet wounds, it is impossible to tell what happened but it was from the front no matter which one of the three happened. I agree with the famous doctor and said that in the beginning that the wounds did not mean that he was surrendering.    What was more enlightening was after Baden was on, another pathologists came on and without naming names, basically said that Baden was full of crap when he said that there was no way to tell if the officer's story was true. Of course Baden did not say the officer was lying and only that it could have been either way. Looking at only bullet wounds Baden would be correct but I think a nationally known pathologist that was called in would reference the entire crime scene and not just wounds on a body. The second pathologist called nonsense not because of the three options that Baden gave but because of the crime scene.    Now IF the scene was as that second pathologist described, Officer Wilson's story is entirely correct, period. I saw something similar at a pretty bad cutting/aggravated assault earlier this year. The key is the blood trail. In the one that I worked the victim had his left arm cut. We found a couple of credible witnesses (people that did not know either side and didn't care which side "won") that described the assault and the physical evidence exactly matched the witnesses' description. The victim walked to his car after being cut, held his arm out the window (he was bleeding like a stuck pig) and drove to the next driveway in the apartment complex. He walked to a gate to try and get some help but the gate was locked. He walked back to the car, got in and drove away but only a block or two where he flagged down an officer. All of this from the witnesses except the flagging down the officer a short distance away.    What corroborated the witnesses was the blood trail. It went from the sidewalk where the cutting happened to the car parked on the road. There was a big puddle of blood where the car was originally parked. The victim then drove to the next driveway, got out and a larger pool of blood was there where he was hanging his arm out the window. There was also a trail of trickles of blood down the street where he drove with his arm hanging out plus blood down the side of the car.    At the driveway there was a blood trail on one side of the sidewalk in a line, it turned and came back to the where the car had been parked. We knew his left arms was cut because we could see it. We then retraced his steps up the sidewalk from the car and there was the blood trail on the left side of the sidewalk to the gate. The blood was on the other side of the sidewalk as he walked back. The only way it could have been any different since we knew which arm was cut would have been for him to walk all the way to the gate backwards and then return to his car, also backwards.    The second pathologist that described the crime scene and not just an autopsy described the different blood trails at the crime scene and starting with Brown's hand being wounded from the shot in the car and it dripping as he turned to flee. That blood trail did a circle and showed that Brown was coming back toward the officer, much like the cutting that I was at where the guy did the U-turn when the gate was locked. Then there was a lot of blood when Brown started taking rounds and it led away from where Brown turned around and advanced back toward Wilson. That heavier blood trail tracked for about 20 feet (if I remember correctly) meaning that Brown could not have been surrendering when he took rounds because if he had only gone straight to the ground, the blood would have been puddled there and not leading back toward Wilson. Also if he had been running away from Wilson, the heavier blood trail would have been leading away from Wilson and the direction of the patrol unit, not toward it.    Of course all of that is assuming that the pathologist did not get on national television and lie about what he observed. If his description was correct, in my opinion case closed including all the speculations.   ​    

I did watch a lot of MSNBC and CNN since the grand jury no bill was returned and I must say that it is entertaining.    They whining and outright lies are a hoot. 

    Nothing in my post was from Fox News and any news service would probably do well reading my post as I have not seen the law on any of them.    I did not say that Obama gave blanket amnesty in any case.    Obama did give amnesty to a specific group that covers probably a majority of illegal aliens. That is illegal.   I can see that you hinged your entire argument on a single word. I can only assume that means you have nothing else to argue as far as the validity of Article I, Sec. 8 as argued by the Obama administration in AZ v. US. 

I have seen a lot of comments and questions on why there was no indictment (mostly from Brown family attorneys) so that Officer Wilson could defend himself in open court and prove his innocence. There have also been comparison with OJ and why he was indicted and had to “prove his innocence” (I have no clue about that one).   There are provisions in state and federal law for using deadly force in self defense. There is no requirement that you prove that you are innocent under those laws. The burden is on the state to prove that you did not have valid self defense. I have been to several instances of self defense in my 31 years in law enforcement where the person that used up to deadly force was not arrested or ever charged. That is because there was not even enough proof to indict. They didn't have to prove they were innocent in court when there wasn't enough evidence that they weren't in the first place. Remember that the burden of proof on an indictment is the same as an arrest. In other words, to have enough information to indict then the state would have the same information at the scene to arrest Wilson. They did not. The laws on self defense have the built in provision that the state has the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense did not exist. It is not enough to merely say that a guy is dead so there has to be a trial. It is not that way for anyone. While it is easy to say that causing the death of someone is some form of homicide and it only takes probable cause (meaning more likely the person is guilty than innocent) to indict, that is not taking self defense into issue which does not exist for most other crimes. For example if a person is indicted for a robbery, there is not defense to prosecution that the robbery was justified. There can be no claim that yes I committed the robbery but it was justified so don't indict me. That is not true in use of force which has such defenses that have to be overcome by the state/DA. People say that the officer got some kind of special treatment but as I stated above, I have seen many people that were not arrested or ever charged. They were not police officers and the last one that I was at which was early this year, it was a black man killing another black man in what was basically a street fight. The man that shot and killed the other was not arrested and was never charged. Why? Because he had a claim of self defense and there was not enough proof that he did not have the right of self defense. If he was not ever arrested in a crime or later charged for a homicide and made to prove that he was not guilty, how does it show Wilson got special treatment? In the OJ case, he did not claim self defense and his claim was that he was not even there. For that reason his case has nothing in common with the Wilson case other than someone died. Wilson admits to killing Brown and his version was backed up by several witnesses and the physical evidence. As the DA stated last night when questioned by a pot stirring reporter, all of the witnesses that saw Brown charging at Wilson were black. There was no indictment in the Wilson case because the burden of proof was not met and probably not even close. It is also the same reason that the special prosecutor did not go to a grand jury in the Zimmerman case because she knew that there was not enough evidence to indict by a grand jury, much less convict, but she wanted a trial and FL allows an indictment without a grand jury.   So when did this country change from the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty to you have to prove you are innocent? I am not talking about public opinion such as in these forums but in court. That is exactly what some people wanted in this case, for Wilson to prove that he is not guilty. Sorry but that is not the way the system including the US Constitution and Texas Constitution are written. 

They had to pull FD and EMS out for a while for shots being fired. Now I hear they have a shooting victim and police are having to escort EMS in to get the guy.    Also, FAA has shut down air space due to so many shots being fired. 

    Been listening to that one and West St. Louis at this one.   [Hidden Content]

Bring your kids to a riot night............ 

Letting it burn for now.

Listening to the police scanner from Ferguson. The fire department is being pulled out due to heavy gunfire. 

I have been trying to keep up with that since it came up a few months ago. I think it was Nancy Pelosi that I saw make a comment on it a few months ago where she tried to make an excuse saying something like that is what the law says but it was not their intent and was an oversight.    I guess that goes into her, let's pass the bill so we can see what is in it. Apparently they didn't know what was in it either. That might doom them in the end. 

Justice when the looked at the evidence.   I liked the DA saying how many people came forward with information and once they were shown the actual physical evidence they changed their stories. Then most said that they did not actually see the shooting but heard about it. That did not stop them from coming in to claim that they were witnesses.    It sounds like there should have been indictments for perjury. 

I just got off the phone with the command post in Ferguson. All that a supervisor would tell me was that they were on standby. He was in the post with about 400-500 officers. 

  I am amazed that more of that stuff doesn't happen when people go buy guns and have no clue how to handle them safely.  They figure they can just buy one and wave it around.

I think the grand jury will do the right thing and no bill the whole deal. To do otherwise for political expedience would be tragic. Of course all you have to do is look at the Zimmerman case and see that it might be done although in that case the special prosecutor decided not to go to a grand jury which was an option in FL.    She knew what would happen if they did so she went around them. I think this grand jury might be in the same place and see that there is no evidence of wrongdoing.