Discuss: the Ferguson decision

A grand jury in St. Louis County has cleared Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown on August 9, apparently determining officer Wilson acted lawfully when he shot Brown.

I wanted to get your thoughts on this situation, so please discuss.

Edit: To start the discussion, I’ll post this piece outlining why St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was the wrong man to present the case for charging Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson before a grand jury, citing McCulloch’s past support for police officers in another police misconduct case, as well a family history that includes many family members on the police force including his father, who was killed by a black man with a gun.

Share:

Related Articles

74 thoughts on “Discuss: the Ferguson decision

  1. Duane12: the grand jury got it right. No question or ambiguity about it. Just like the federal review will get it right with no charges brought. Brown was the aggressor and the police officer did the appropriate thing given the circumstances at that time.

    Any other interpretation of the evidence would show real bias.

    Michael brown was a THUG. Every action he did that day proved that. trust me that wasn’t the first time he robbed someone. he was no choirboy he was no choirboy before the event and viewing him as a hero or as a martyr is plain wrong and pretty stupid

    1. Nice to hear that you opposed DNR Stepp and the Republican majority in WI, ignoring past history of serious pipeline spills and environmental violations as factors to consider when allowing Enbridge to double current volume, and switch to dilbit, to be allowed to be forced through existing pipes in WI, when they granted expansion permits without requiring updating of EIS assessments.

      Past behavioral patterns matter you say. Proves guilt in this instance with MB you say. How exactly did you oppose the R move favoring Enbridge which I just described? Link please.

  2. Michael Brown may have been a teenager in age but he was a full grown adult man his actions were that of a criminal thug the grand jury got it 100% correct no charges should have been filed you will soon see the federal probe also determined no charges should be filed because it was an appropriate response to an aggressive man that was resisting and attempting to harm the officers life

    1. chris,

      He was jay-walking. That’s a misdemeanor. I have no quarrel with the traffic stop.

      You and D.A. Bob McCulloch, however don’t have ANY evidence. Everyone agrees Brown was unarmed. The photos of Officer Wilson show no injuries to back up his version. You, and D.A McCulloch have to explain how if Mike Brown was ANY kind of a threat to ANYONE, why he died more than 150 feet AWAY from Officer Wilson’s SUV?

      You can’t even defend the first two rounds Officer Wilson fired (in his vehicle). It’s the next ten that are even more egregious. Each shot is less defensible than the one before it. Mike Brown was hit six times. With each wound, he was increasingly less a threat to Officer Wilson.

      On top of all his other policing errors, Officer Wilson shot up a neighborhood. Half his rounds missed their intended target. Where’s the drug test of Officer Wilson? Was he drunk on duty?

  3. John: you can’t defend the shots inside the vehicle!.?!! he was attacking the officer in his vehicle he was grabbing for the officers gun he got shot in the thumb for god sakes in the vehicle when he got out of the vehicle and ran officer Wilson ordered them to stop at which point brown turned around and charged at him according to I witness accounts and officer Wilson’s account that is win officer Wilson fired to stop the threat to his life all three autopsies backup a version of events that officer Wilson has described no autopsy backs up events that the looters and rioters care to believe. and it is convenient to say all he was doing was jaywalking when in fact he was leaving the scene of a crime he was leaving an area where he had just robbed and roughed up a convenience store clerk and his act of aggression was in response to his concern that he was going to be arrested for the robbery that he had just undertaken he was not a choir boy I repeat again he was a criminal he acted like a criminal and if he would have followed the orders of the officer he would be alive today probably in jail for the crime he committed unfortunately he did not follow the orders of the officer and he attempted to engage the officer in a fight and the officer fired his service revolver to protect his life

    1. I’ll end where I began. We’ll hear Michael Brown’s testimony to the facts later today.

    2. chris,

      pro-tip: p-a-r-a-g-r-a-p-h-s

      1. chris, you wrote: “John: you can’t defend the shots inside the vehicle!.?!!”

      I need evidence.

      2. chris wrote: “he was attacking the officer in his vehicle”

      Where’s your evidence? Have you bothered to look at the photos of Officer Wilson? He didn’t appear to have been attacked by anyone.
      What was Officer Wilson doing letting Brown get so close to his vehicle? That’s the start of the bad policing I was talking about. He never should have let Brown get anywhere near his vehicle. He could have easily driven away to put distance between himself and Brown. Then he could have turned the vehicle around to put its dashboard camera on Brown. Then he had multiple options going forward on how to make an arrest.

      3. chris wrote: “he was grabbing for the officers gun”

      Where’s your evidence?

      Officer Wilson fired two shots from inside his vehicle. Everyone agrees on that. He let Brown get too close to the vehicle. Once he started firing shots from inside his vehicle, he knew his fellow police officers would know he had used really bad policing techniques. At this point, he has no idea if an innocent bystander has been killed or wounded by his first two rounds.

      If he’s in fear for his life why does he leave the safety of his vehicle to empty the rest of his magazine in Brown’s general direction? See number 16 below for more on your take on Officer Wilson’s bad policing.

      4. chris wrote: “he got shot in the thumb for god sakes in the vehicle when he got out of the vehicle and ran”

      So you agree, Brown is running away.

      Why is Officer Wilson trying to shoot him in the back?

      “As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?ref=us&_r=2

      5. chris wrote: “officer Wilson ordered them to stop”

      Where’s your evidence?

      It appears Officer Wilson wanted him to stop, because he couldn’t hit Brown as he was moving.

      6. chris wrote: “at which point brown turned around”

      Agree. He surrendered. He probably was afraid that since Officer Wilson couldn’t hit him, he’d hit an even more innocent bystander.

      He got down on his knees and put his hands up, the universal sign of surrender.

      7. chris wrote: “and charged at him”

      Outside of Officer Wilson’s testimony, where is your evidence?

      How many times had Brown been hit before you claim he “charged” Officer Wilson?

      What evidence do you have that Brown was in control of his movement?

      After being shot that many times, how do you continue to claim that Brown was a threat?

      The volume of rounds (12) is very strong evidence that Officer Wilson wanted to silence Brown as a witness. After the initial two rounds in the vehicle, Officer Wilson had some pre-meditation.

      8. chris wrote: “according to I witness accounts”

      Produce a link to all the eye-witness accounts that you think support your position.

      9. chris wrote: “and officer Wilson’s account”

      Is this the report Officer Wilson wrote the day of the shooting. If so, please provide a link.

      10. chris wrote: “that is win officer Wilson fired”

      No. The New York Times link I offered above contradicts you here. St. Louis P.D. admitted that Officer Wilson exited his vehicle and tried to shoot Mike Brown in the back.

      11. chris wrote: “to stop the threat to his life”

      “to stop a threat to his career for incredibly bad policing and putting innocent bystanders at risk by reckless discharge of his weapon”

      FIFY

      12. chris wrote “all three autopsies backup a version of events that officer Wilson has described”

      All three confirm Officer Wilson was a really bad shot. All three confirmed Mike Brown was dead from bullets shot by Officer Wilson. The fact that he was shot from the front confirm eye-witness accounts that Mike Brown had surrendered. He was on his knees with his hands up.

      13. chris wrote: “no autopsy backs up events that the looters and rioters care to believe.

      See above.

      How many of the looters and rioters at the Keene Pumpkin fest were arrested? http://www.boston.com/news/local/new-hampshire/2014/10/29/three-arrested-connection-with-keene-pumpkin-riots/0HelM6pS1WzqVYG7iDgtvL/story.html

      14. chris, a lot of your problems are because you don’t like the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      You support Gov. Nixon and his use of the National Guard and law enforcement to suppress American’s First Amendment rights. If you’re not going to defend the First Amendment, you’re no friend of the Second.

      15. chris wrote: “and it is convenient to say all he was doing was jaywalking”

      That was the reason for the traffic stop.

      16. chris wrote: “when in fact he was leaving the scene of a crime”

      I think you’re wrong, but you just crushed Officer Wilson.

      Produce the 911 call from the “crime,” you claim Mike Brown committed. See #3 above. If you think Officer Wilson knew anything about Brown (who had NEVER been arrested), then his bad policing at the start is several magnitudes more serious.

      17. chris wrote: “he was leaving an area where he had just robbed and roughed up a convenience store clerk and his act of aggression was in response to his concern that he was going to be arrested for the robbery that he had just undertaken he was not a choir boy I repeat again he was a criminal he acted like a criminal and if he would have followed the orders of the officer he would be alive today probably in jail for the crime he committed unfortunately he did not follow the orders of the officer and he attempted to engage the officer in a fight and the officer fired his service revolver to protect his life”

      He was high on pot. That’s a crime he could have been prosecuted for.

      Police are trained to arrest people without killing them. They do it all the time. If you let a police officer empty his weapon into someone, and then claim self-defense, why do we need police officers? Anyone can do that. Government can liberally hand out C&C permits and we can let the courts sort out the carnage. Is that what you want?

      With “friends” like you, law enforcement doesn’t need enemies.

  4. nonquixote:

    I think it is clear. Michael Brown will testify that he was on his way to the library. Or maybe to the grocery store to get her some chicken soup because she was feeling ill. Maybe he was just about to pick up his handicapped friend that he volunteered to mentor. Probably was on his way to volunteer at a food bank… Yeah… He was that kind of guy. NOT the type that robs a convenience store and roughs up the clerk nooooooo he was a sweet young little boy… RIGHTTTTTT

    1. You’ve ignored my 2:45pm response to your rant about Mike Brown’s history, which I presented in the form of an analogy. Truth can be frightening. Here you are simply disrespectfully speculating and demonizing another human being to justify your very apparent fear and loathing.

      Past history I’ll bet, (cheating at Marquette, lying about leaving MU to start his family 3 years before Tonette was inseminated, [sorry if you were eating your meal] privatizing security services in Milw that cost taxpayers $Millions, refusing to get onboard with Fed Medicaid money and setting up exchanges, estimated to directly cause between 400 and 600 unnecessary deaths of WI citizens every year, having his closest political advisers and operatives convicted of 6 felony counts of theft etc., fake Koch call, WEDC abject failure to function, $2B tax give-away to the state’s most wealthy with no accountability required,) didn’t affect your gubernatorial choice. I am smelling plenty of moral hypocrisy and no moral authority?

      Had you read the comments you may still not have understood I have not defended Michael Brown, but I have been pointing out the holes in the system that claims that justice was in any way served throughout the investigation and the GJ process along with the holes in your assumptions about MB getting what he deserved. Tons of questions from you and the sock puppet squad but I haven’t seen one answer. I’m only about 1/4 through the 4800 pages of testimony I linked to. How far are you?

      I also pointed out the obvious Fusion Center practice run for the HSA’s intended further military repression of all US citizens as Republicans will continue to dismantle our democratic republic in the coming year. No possibility of agent provocateurs in the crowd in Ferguson last night? Absolutely no klan members residing in that neck of the central midwest and certainly nobody would deliberately fire a few rounds in the air to cause a planned crackdown on the citizens of Ferguson?

      Watched any of the video from last night not from the MSM? Fires maybe started by dozens to a hundred flaming tear gas canisters, indiscriminately launched by police. No possibility that last night was planned retribution for those ni**ers daring to be, “questioning authority?”

      I don’t have all the answers and that’s where you and I differ, thank dog, I am aware of that fact.

  5. Scott Greenfield’s “The Ferguson Lie,” is a must read. Greenfield’s a defense attorney.

    Americans may be a smart, educated people, but we are lazy and ignorant. It’s too much effort for our delicate sensibilities to gain a deeper understanding of how our nation functions. This is why the Ferguson Lie happened. This is why the Ferguson Lie works.

    That the grand jury did not indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson was a foregone conclusion. To those of us who don’t have to look up a study or read a law review article to understand how indictments happen in the real world, the outcome was clear when St. Louis County District Attorney Bob McCulloch announced that he would present all the evidence to the grand jury. Wachtler’s “ham sandwich” has grown trite in this discussion.

    The Ferguson Lie is an appeal to our sense of fairness and transparency. We were played. McCulloch’s lengthy spiel before announcing “no true bill” was to spread the lie. To the ear of the media, McCulloch’s pitch was appealing; the grand jury heard all the evidence. The grand jury transcript will be disclosed to provide complete transparency. Witnesses lied to the media, but the grand jury heard the truth. The grand jury saw the hard evidence. Nine whites and three blacks, so no one would think that the grand jury was denied the voice of people of color, sat on the grand jury, which met for 25 sessions and more than 70 hours of testimony.

    The grand jury did the dirty work that America needed done. The grand jury has spoken.

    This is the lie.

    The description of what happened with the grand jury, how it heard all the evidence, how it will be transparent, is intended to appease our innate sense of fairness. Americans love things that appear fair, even if we don’t quite understand what actual fairness means. This sounds as if it was done as well, as fairly, as it could possibly be done. But it’s a lie.

    “All the evidence” is a phrase that applies to a trial. A trial is a procedure that happens in an open courtroom, where adversaries zealously present their case and challenge the other side’s case. It is transparent because we can watch it unfold, develop, happen before our eyes. We hear the questions and answers, the objections and rulings. We hear the request to admit evidence and the voir dire and challenge to its admission. We hear the opening arguments and summations.

    McCulloch put on a play in Ferguson. His press conference announcing the foregone conclusion was remarkable in many ways, not the least of which was how he sold the argument for “no true bill” rather than the position he, as prosecutor, was duty-bound to champion. The man charged with prosecuting killers argued the case for not indicting Wilson.

    McCulloch didn’t have to go to the grand jury at all. He could have prosecuted Wilson by fiat had he wanted to do so. He did not. He was not going to be the person who charged Wilson with any variation of homicide. But in deciding to take the case to the grand jury, the lie was born….

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/

  6. JOHN:

    I GUESS you are right. Officer Wilson is a huge racist cop that was out for blood that day. So he decided the only resonable thing to do was to gun down an innocent JAYWALKER in the middle of a crowded city street. Unfortunately for Michael Brown he just happened to be that person. Stupid racist cop…

    Luckily for Officer Wilson the person he happened upon just luckily decided to burgler a local business. Luckily for Officer Wilson the innocent life he took also decided to confront him in his vehicle. What LUCK!!!

    Sometimes RACIST BLOODTHIRSTY COPS just happen upon strong armed robbery suspects who resist arrest. What a Great Alibi!!! (and an amazingly good one at that!)

    RACIST Bloodthirsty COP WINS AGAIN!!!!

  7. John:

    Also, you sir are a wingnut crazy person. You write with such eloquence but clearly are delusional if you believe that Michael Brown was an innocent victim.

    1. chris,

      How many different folks share your handle?

      The author of

      “John:

      Also, you sir are a wingnut crazy person. You write with such eloquence but clearly are delusional if you believe that Michael Brown was an innocent victim.”

      didn’t write the rest of your stuff. Note the careful attention to punctuation, spelling, and detail.

      Am I to take this as a compliment? My earlier comments brought out the first string?

      In a previous reply to you, I numbered my responses. 1 – 17

      You didn’t reply to any of them.

      Until you do something to change the score, that’s

      John Casper 17

      all those behind the chris handle 0

Comments are closed.