Ferguson?

[SCSteeler4life]

Sweet innocent Brown was a gentle giant teddy bear about to go to college. Yeah right, until his debut felony video was released. Probably just another gang banging thug.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

18 year olds don't charge guns. The kid was fresh out of high school. I do not believe he committed suicide like that..I saw that video you speak of. I wonder why it is not getting more attention. The contractor's account is very damning. They have no skin in game..

What skin in the game did the guy filming the crime scene telling his buddy that Mike ran toward the cop while getting shot? All of the witness statements will be disregarded IMO, they are too conflicting. The key will be if there are prints on the cop's belt or gun, and any evidence of assault. Whether the kid had hands up or not (with no video and conflicting reports we won't know), if he assaulted that cop and/or was trying to get the gun no way any jury convicts. Proof of 2 felonies in 15 minutes will cast a really big reasonable doubt shadow if you ask me.

 

[Buster]

Is the toxicology report back yet?

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Is the toxicology report back yet?

Yup, died of lead poisoning.

 

[Steeltime]

How about the 7 witnesses, including two white that all say the same thing? He was shot with his hands up.

That's why we have a prosecutor, a defense counsel, and a jury.

Anyone on this forum who "concludes" what occurred is wrong. 100% wrong. The only people who will be able to determine what happened are those who attend every day of the trial - jury included, obviously - and hear the evidence, evaluate the witnesses, listen to the expert testimony, and follow the judge's instructions on the law.

Your "conclusion" that Brown would not have charged the officer, based on your own life experience, is in fact contrary to the law. The law mandates that you make a decision based on the evidence, not based on your preconceptions.

Brown's activities earlier that day - the fact that he roughed up a store clerk and was likely facing serious criminal charges - are relevant and admissible as to his state of mind. That evidence may well explain why he acted the way he did when confronted by the police: He thought he was in serious trouble and was looking at jail time, while the officer thought it was a basic traffic issue.

Finally, the arguments and opinions about what the police officer should have done will be hashed out before the grand jury and in trial, if that follows. If the officer followed his department's use-of-force standards, he will have a very good argument that he committed no crime. It is NOT crime for the police to shoot an unarmed citizen; it IS a crime for an officer to shoot an unarmed citizen in violation of department standards and use-of-force restrictions.

Unless you have heard the evidence, and know the use-of-force requirements, and know that the officer said and did, expressions as to his guilt or innocence are a waste of time.

 

[6Rings]

That's why we have a prosecutor, a defense counsel, and a jury.

Anyone on this forum who "concludes" what occurred is wrong. 100% wrong. The only people who will be able to determine what happened are those who attend every day of the trial - jury included, obviously - and hear the evidence, evaluate the witnesses, listen to the expert testimony, and follow the judge's instructions on the law.

Your "conclusion" that Brown would not have charged the officer, based on your own life experience, is in fact contrary to the law. The law mandates that you make a decision based on the evidence, not based on your preconceptions.

Brown's activities earlier that day - the fact that he roughed up a store clerk and was likely facing serious criminal charges - are relevant and admissible as to his state of mind. That evidence may well explain why he acted the way he did when confronted by the police: He thought he was in serious trouble and was looking at jail time, while the officer thought it was a basic traffic issue.

Finally, the arguments and opinions about what the police officer should have done will be hashed out before the grand jury and in trial, if that follows. If the officer followed his department's use-of-force standards, he will have a very good argument that he committed no crime. It is NOT crime for the police to shoot an unarmed citizen; it IS a crime for an officer to shoot an unarmed citizen in violation of department standards and use-of-force restrictions.

Unless you have heard the evidence, and know the use-of-force requirements, and know that the officer said and did, expressions as to his guilt or innocence are a waste of time.

I am giving my opinion. My opinion will not influence this case. Nuff said..

 

[6Rings]

What skin in the game did the guy filming the crime scene telling his buddy that Mike ran toward the cop while getting shot? All of the witness statements will be disregarded IMO, they are too conflicting. The key will be if there are prints on the cop's belt or gun, and any evidence of assault. Whether the kid had hands up or not (with no video and conflicting reports we won't know), if he assaulted that cop and/or was trying to get the gun no way any jury convicts. Proof of 2 felonies in 15 minutes will cast a really big reasonable doubt shadow if you ask me.

I never said I could'nt be wrong. This is my opinion so far.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

I never said I could'nt be wrong. This is my opinion so far.

You are friends with Supe so your opinion is worthless.

I think we all can agree that if a not guilty verdict happens Ferguson will be a war zone. A fair trial will be next to impossible.

 

[Steeltime]

I am giving my opinion. My opinion will not influence this case. Nuff said..

But your opinion is based on nothing - literally, not on one actual piece of admissible evidence.

Your opinions on Steelers play-calling have some basis if you saw the game, or went over the play-by-play after the contest, or watched game film. But what value is an opinion on the Steelers' play-calling if you did not listen to the game, did not see the game, and did not review the game film and instead based it on what your brother told you about the play calling?

Your "opinions" on the subject fall into the latter category.

 

[6Rings]

But your opinion is based on nothing - literally, not on one actual piece of admissible evidence.

Your opinions on Steelers play-calling have some basis if you saw the game, or went over the play-by-play after the contest, or watched game film. But what value is an opinion on the Steelers' play-calling if you did not listen to the game, did not see the game, and did not review the game film and instead based it on what your brother told you about the play calling?

Your "opinions" on the subject fall into the latter category.

The jury will not have witnessed anything either. They will go off of the evidence. The 7 witness statements is evidence. I am forming an opinion on the evidence I have been able to gather so far. So your statement that my opinion is formed on nothing is not accurate at all.

 

[6Rings]

But your opinion is based on nothing - literally, not on one actual piece of admissible evidence.

Your opinions on Steelers play-calling have some basis if you saw the game, or went over the play-by-play after the contest, or watched game film. But what value is an opinion on the Steelers' play-calling if you did not listen to the game, did not see the game, and did not review the game film and instead based it on what your brother told you about the play calling?

Your "opinions" on the subject fall into the latter category.

The jury will not have witnessed anything either. They will go off of the evidence. The 7 witness statements is evidence. I am forming an opinion on the evidence I have been able to gather so far. So your statement that my opinion is formed on nothing is not accurate at all.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The jury will not have witnessed anything either. They will go off of the evidence. The 7 witness statements is evidence. I am forming an opinion on the evidence I have been able to gather so far. So your statement that my opinion is formed on nothing is not accurate at all.

How about including "ALL" evidence? Mentioned before, but this has to be considered. It goes against the "7 witnesses."

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168...tail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/

BTW, the more I continue to hear "the seven witnesses" I'm reminded of "97% of scientists say Global Warming is real." It's meaningless garbage that's been refuted.

Let's wait till the evidence is all laid out and a trial (if it happens) occurs.

 

[Steeltime]

The jury will not have witnessed anything either. They will go off of the evidence. The 7 witness statements is evidence. I am forming an opinion on the evidence I have been able to gather so far. So your statement that my opinion is formed on nothing is not accurate at all.

No, the purported witness statements are not evidence. They are multiple hearsay (witness to news source, news source to reader or viewer), and inadmissible at this point.

If and when the witness takes the stand, and testifies under penalty of perjury, and provides testimony that the court deems admissible, then it becomes evidence. However, the information you are reviewing at this point is inadmissible. It does not constitute admissible evidence, any more than a claim by me about use of force for a Missouri police officer - where I have never been in law enforcement, and have never worked under use-of-force restrictions, and have not attended classes or training on use of force - would constitute "evidence."

And seriously, 6Rings, do you really think you have a better argument on what constitutes "evidence" than someone who has worked as a lawyer for 25 years?

 

[6Rings]

No, the purported witness statements are not evidence. They are multiple hearsay (witness to news source, news source to reader or viewer), and inadmissible at this point.

If and when the witness takes the stand, and testifies under penalty of perjury, and provides testimony that the court deems admissible, then it becomes evidence. However, the information you are reviewing at this point is inadmissible. It does not constitute admissible evidence, any more than a claim by me about use of force for a Missouri police officer - where I have never been in law enforcement, and have never worked under use-of-force restrictions, and have not attended classes or training on use of force - would constitute "evidence."

And seriously, 6Rings, do you really think you have a better argument on what constitutes "evidence" than someone who has worked as a lawyer for 25 years?

As I said before, that is my opinion and what I believe at this point in the game. Nothing you say will sway me from leaning that way. Everyone has an opinion and I have made mine. I am considering the 7 witnesses, if no one else is. If it is not admissible in court, that is fine. If you think my opinion is baseless, that is fine too. It will not change anything. If the officer is not charged, then obviously I will have been wrong. I will get over it..

 

[6Rings]

How about including "ALL" evidence? Mentioned before, but this has to be considered. It goes against the "7 witnesses."

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168...tail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/

BTW, the more I continue to hear "the seven witnesses" I'm reminded of "97% of scientists say Global Warming is real." It's meaningless garbage that's been refuted.

Let's wait till the evidence is all laid out and a trial (if it happens) occurs.

I considered that video as well. I am still leaning the other way. My opinion is subject to change. If I am wrong, so be it. I will admit it. No sweat off my back..

 

[PoloMalo43]

That's why we have a prosecutor, a defense counsel, and a jury.

Anyone on this forum who "concludes" what occurred is wrong. 100% wrong. The only people who will be able to determine what happened are those who attend every day of the trial - jury included, obviously - and hear the evidence, evaluate the witnesses, listen to the expert testimony, and follow the judge's instructions on the law.

Your "conclusion" that Brown would not have charged the officer, based on your own life experience, is in fact contrary to the law. The law mandates that you make a decision based on the evidence, not based on your preconceptions.

You want to learn the definition of 'preconceptions' kids? Look below at the red, you'll see bias all in one direction.


Brown's activities earlier that day - the fact that he roughed up a store clerk and was likely facing serious criminal charges - are relevant and admissible as to his state of mind. That evidence may well explain why he acted the way he did when confronted by the police: He thought he was in serious trouble and was looking at jail time, while the officer thought it was a basic traffic issue.

Finally, the arguments and opinions about what the police officer should have done will be hashed out before the grand jury and in trial, if that follows. If the officer followed his department's use-of-force standards, he will have a very good argument that he committed no crime. It is NOT crime for the police to shoot an unarmed citizen; it IS a crime for an officer to shoot an unarmed citizen in violation of department standards and use-of-force restrictions.

Unless you have heard the evidence, and know the use-of-force requirements, and know that the officer said and did, expressions as to his guilt or innocence are a waste of time.

What about your preconceptions? Following your logic; why didn't he keep running if he was looking at serious jail time?

So because he was looking at serious jail time he chose instead to run, then stop and commit suicide by cop instead of the more likely answer that he was hit and decided to surrender?

Please..........

Don't even get me started on the basically all white grand jury and your fantasies about justice.

 

[Steeltime]

What about your preconceptions? Following your logic; why didn't he keep running if he was looking at serious jail time?

So because he was looking at serious jail time he chose instead to run, then stop and commit suicide by cop instead of the more likely answer that he was hit and decided to surrender?

Please..........

Don't even get me started on the basically all white grand jury and your fantasies about justice.

You must enjoy being my punching bag. Perhaps you should volunteer to room at Adrian Peterson's house, drop your drawers in front of AP, and save the kids from being beaten.

My statement about the video is a correct statement of law and evidence. That is, the video of Brown roughing up the store clerk is relevant and admissible as to his state of mind at the time he encountered the police shortly thereafter. I viewed the video, not a multiple hearsay recitation as to what the video showed, so my analysis is based on the evidence that would be presented to the jury.

In terms of relevant evidence, the Federal Rules of Evidence are a common reference source and model for states, and defines relevant evidence as follows:

"Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."

Here, the video showing Brown roughing up the store clerk is NOT used to suggest that since he is a thug when pushing around a store clerk, he is a thug when he encounters the police shortly thereafter. Instead, as I explained in some detail previously, the evidence has a tendency in reason to prove that it is more probable (not dispositive, mind you, simply more probable) that Brown believed the police had cause to arrest him for a potentially serious offense, and therefore behaved much differently towards the police officer had he encountered the police 10 minutes before roughing up the store clerk.

Further, that fact is of consequence in determining any criminal charge against the police officer, since the defendant (if prosecuted) will be allowed to present all relevant evidence in his defense. For evidence of this nature, which is admissible to prove "state of mind," excluding such evidence would almost certainly constitute reversible error.

The trial judge will therefore admit the evidence, instruct the jury that the video is NOT admitted as evidence of Brown's character or propensity for violence and shall not be considered for that purpose. Further, the prosecutor is free to argue in closing what the jury should conclude from that evidence. Your argument is not one any competent prosecutor would make, since the chances are high that at least 1 juror thinks the video explains why Brown would have a potentially strong reaction to being confronted by policy. You would have basically insulted that juror, where you need a unanimous verdict.

Instead of your clearly faulty approach, I would argue that it is equally likely that Brown's earlier bullying of the store clerk would make him less likely to confront the police to avoid insuring that he is put in custody. I would further argue that the judge instructed the jury to avoid speculation, and the argument about his potentially aggressive state of mind is speculative. I most definitely would not be a preening dick, like you, and risk ostracizing a member of the jury.

What is clear is that you know nothing about evidence, presenting evidence to a jury, countering evidence, or understanding that in a criminal prosecution, the judge will err on the side of admitting potentially relevant evidence to avoid planting reversible error in the verdict.

Finally, I know that you desperately searched this thread for some "conclusion" on my part to make a point, and failed. That is because I have offered no conclusion, other than the admissibility of the video evidence, based on my actual trial experience in both state and Federal courts, and as detailed above. So do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself.

Ahh, **** it, keep saying stupid things so that I can drop-kick your *** a few more times.

 

[Steel Not A Player]

This cop is done. He's toast, and he'd best get his affairs in order.

As for the whites in the thread who's desire to see him walk has now reached the point of desperation: clutch at your straws.

Your boy is going down. Maybe he can be saved using the tried and true bait & switch tactic of venue change/all white jury. But I doubt it. I think he's ****** at this point.

At the same time, I hope Black folk don't celebrate his demise too loudly. The rank hypocrisy and racism displayed in this thread shows just how much hatred is building against Blacks in the white community.

Win or lose, this is going to end badly for America. A not guilty verdict means riots and violence. A guilty verdict means whites will seethe and move further toward far right positions. There is no good to come out of this, and reading the 50 some odd pages of this thread prove that to be so.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Maybe this

At the same time, I hope Black folk don't celebrate his demise too loudly. The rank hypocrisy and racism displayed in this thread shows just how much hatred is building against Blacks in the white community.

Has something to do with this.

Win or lose, this is going to end badly for America. A not guilty verdict means riots and violence. A guilty verdict means whites will seethe and move further toward far right positions. There is no good to come out of this, and reading the 50 some odd pages of this thread prove that to be so.

Just a thought.

 

[Stewey]

Maybe this



Has something to do with this.



Just a thought.

Blacks had every right to riot and loot because cops treat them like animals.


Wait a sec...

 

[Stewey]

Gotta start them out young.

In Cleveland, a black girl attacks and beats white girl on bike while mom records it.
Yeah, I know polo, this girl has been a victim of white oppression and is merely releasing her pent up rage.

 

[xjx]

This discussion sucks. The black americans want to see this cop hung in town square. Let me add this...if I punched a cop in the face, grabbed for his gun and charged him when he told me to stop, I would expect him to take more enforcive action than just using words to get me to obey the law. So, I wouldn't grab for a cops gun, punch him in the face or charge at him while he has his gun drawn. That is certainly asking for trouble.

 

[hamster]

As for the whites in the thread who's desire to see him walk has now reached the point of desperation: clutch at your straws.

Your boy is going down. .

I am not reading through this thread to find your examples of rank hypocrisy and racism. Feel free to cite them for us, because I don't recall seeing that.

I think the general concensus here was that if the cop was guilty, he should receive appropriate punishment. The issue was how the media already convicted the guy, and fueled unrest. There was also the violent reaction by some in the black community, that solved nothing, other than destroying the local business community.

 

[Stewey]

This cop is done. He's toast, and he'd best get his affairs in order.

As for the whites in the thread who's desire to see him walk has now reached the point of desperation: clutch at your straws.

Your boy is going down. Maybe he can be saved using the tried and true bait & switch tactic of venue change/all white jury. But I doubt it. I think he's ****** at this point.

At the same time, I hope Black folk don't celebrate his demise too loudly. The rank hypocrisy and racism displayed in this thread shows just how much hatred is building against Blacks in the white community.

Win or lose, this is going to end badly for America. A not guilty verdict means riots and violence. A guilty verdict means whites will seethe and move further toward far right positions. There is no good to come out of this, and reading the 50 some odd pages of this thread prove that to be so.

Another liberal simpleton. I see you met polo....freely throwing around the word "racists" when there is little indication of it here.

Racists are those that believe their race is superior and hate others simply for the color of their skin period...no other reason necessary.....those that attacked peaceful protests of blacks with firehoses and German Shepherds were racists. The KKK were racists.

You simpletons can not differentiate between one being a racist, and one showing disapproval of the behavior of a certain segment of our society.
Its not about who they are, it's about what they do.

I'm sure anyone on this board would have a beer with a black man. I have a black sister in law that I adore, I have invited black co workers to my home. I have eaten what a black chef had prepared. I have hired blacks.
I could not possibly be a racist.

As much as you liberal morons would like it to be, my disapproval of what the black community has become does not make me a racist.

 

[oneforthebus]

This cop is done. He's toast, and he'd best get his affairs in order.

As for the whites in the thread who's desire to see him walk has now reached the point of desperation: clutch at your straws.

Your boy is going down. Maybe he can be saved using the tried and true bait & switch tactic of venue change/all white jury. But I doubt it. I think he's ****** at this point.

At the same time, I hope Black folk don't celebrate his demise too loudly. The rank hypocrisy and racism displayed in this thread shows just how much hatred is building against Blacks in the white community.

Win or lose, this is going to end badly for America. A not guilty verdict means riots and violence. A guilty verdict means whites will seethe and move further toward far right positions. There is no good to come out of this, and reading the 50 some odd pages of this thread prove that to be so.

Another person with no reading comprehension. There are no "whites in this thread who desire to see him walk". There are only people who won't rush to judgment without seeing all the evidence. Vs. people who have already decided they know what happened without seeing all of the evidence.

And you are absolutely right no good will come out of it. George Zimmerman, who shot someone who was on top of him, beating him, and was acquitted in a fair trial, is still presumed guilty of cold-blooded murder by many people. You don't really want justice, you want your predetermined conclusions to be confirmed. Nothing else will satisfy you.