So they are burning and looting in Baltimore tonight

[joepistole]

Indeed. It's more likely that a prisoner who actually is incarcerated will receive insufficient medical care, or none at all.

Well, for many of these people they received better healthcare while in jail than out. Remember, for the most part, folks in prison are not wealthy. At least inside a jail they had access to some non urgent healthcare. They had access to a nurse, that is something they didn't have on the outside.

We had our regulars. The most infamous was Manuel Hernandez. Manuel was a scammer. He had the system down. Manuel would get arrested for something. He would steal something or manage to otherwise get himself in trouble with the law, and get arrested. When Manuel got tired of being in jail he would fake a heart attack or a seizure. The jailers would call EMS and we would come a running. We would arrive, the jail would release Manuel, and we would take him to the ER. All the ER triage nurse needed to was to look at Manuel and he/she immediately knew the story. Manuel's reputation preceded him. I can't tell you how many times I picked up Manuel from jail. Manuel was what they now call a frequent flier. I understand one day Manuel actually did have a heart attack while waiting in an ER. But no one took him seriously because Manuel was such a serial abuser of the EMS system. To their credit, the Oakland City jailers knew Manuel just as well as the rest of us, but to my knowledge, they never failed to call EMS when Manuel was doing his get out of jail gig. They were as savvy to Manuel as we were. But they always released Manuel and called EMS. They did their job.

Earlier on, back when I was in the Navy, I served as a brig (jail) corpsman for a time, which is a roll similar to that played by a jail nurse. In the Navy of course all service members and their families had access to healthcare. So for service members the healthcare they received inside a jail was the same as outside the jail. It was sick call inside a jail cell. But that doesn't apply in the civilian world. The US doesn't have universal healthcare.

 

[iceaura]

Both investigations did not find any evidence to back up your assertion of misconduct on the part of Officer Wilson. So, you just pretend those investigations back up your assertions when in fact they do not and hope no one will notice. I have once again provided you with a copy of the DOJ report. Show me where it says Officer Wilson drew his gun.

Your inference of "misconduct" is your own - my assertion here is that Wilson probably - by the evidence - drew his firearm at the beginning of the second confrontation he instigated with Brown, the one that began with him backing up and blocking Brown's path on the street. Whether that is misconduct or not, I left open - you seem to agree that such behavior is not good police work.

On page 80 of this file, you will find the specific DOJ assertion of where and when Wilson drew his gun. It consists of summarizing Wilson's grand jury testimony version, and then stating that this account was "consistent" with four items of evidence: the wound to Brown's hand, the end location of one of the bullets, the bruises on Wilson's face, and the testimony of multiple witnesses who saw Brown's upper body or arms inside the car. http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul.../attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shootin
g_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

However, this statement omits other evidence bearing on the matter (which is present in the same report ), omits consideration of the inconsistencies visible in what it does present, and omits consideration of earlier statements by Wilson that vary somewhat from the grand jury testimony.

For example, the bruises sustained by Wilson were not in fact consistent with his account of being punched very hard in the face while seated with the door closed, as Brown was leaning in through the window - the bruises were to the back of his neck and jaw on the right side. Also, both shell casings were found outside the vehicle, which is difficult to reconcile with the ejection of a shell up and to the right from a gun held at the seated right hip and fired toward the closed driver's side door. And finally, the location of the bullet in the door panel, the wound to Brown's hand, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, are just as consistent with the first version of events we had from Wilson, which was that he was exiting the car when Brown slammed against the opening door and forced it back against him, prior to Brown's going for the gun in his hand through the window of the door.

All of this physical evidence, which is consistent not with Wilson's second and thoroughly coached grand jury version but rather with the initial accounts we had from the time immediately after the event, indicates that Wilson had the gun in his hand as he attempted to exit the car, before being assaulted. This would also make sense of Brown's insulting and arrogant comments as reported by his companion and Wilson, before Brown assaulted Wilson (all agree) , referring to Wilson's being "too much of a pussy to shoot me" or words to that effect, and similar auxiliary evidence.

Note that the DOJ report explicitly refuses to exonerate Wilson, stating that concerns about bad judgment, misconduct, mistakes in perception excusable or not, etc, were dismissed because they could not in the circumstances justify prosecuting him under the limited grounds available via applicable Federal law.

But even it were true it doesn’t mean the “black men” you speak with in your neighborhood are telling you the truth, nor does it mean their experiences are representative, and there may be other factors at work here too. Like maybe those folks have criminal records and were stopped and guns pointed at them for other reasons. Have you ever stopped to think maybe they are not being straight with you?

I know the guys on one particular job did not have criminal records or any other instigating circumstances (such as warrants, etc) because they were working with me, on a job that required a very clean record ( I still use that background check for resume and work history info - it's the most thorough account of my life I've ever seen, significantly better informed and more accurate than my own memory).

Of course I do not know if they, and the black men I've had this from elsewhere, were all cooperating in telling the same false story year after year and job after job for my entire life. I just don't think that's the way to bet. Especially since it fully agrees with the pattern of incidents I have personally witnessed.

 

[joepistole]

Your inference of "misconduct" is your own - my assertion here is that Wilson probably - by the evidence - drew his firearm at the beginning of the second confrontation he instigated with Brown, the one that began with him backing up and blocking Brown's path on the street. Whether that is misconduct or not, I left open - you seem to agree that such behavior is not good police work.

There is no inference, the reports are quite clear. This is what you wrote,

One thing I've noticed is that police seem to draw their firearms very early on in encounters with black people. And we see such examples as the Ferguson killing, where the officer apparently drew his gun in order to accost a black teenager for jaywalking, and this was presented as not unusual or in itself an incitement to violence.

You said Officer Wilson drew his gun in order to accost a black teenager and then you went on to cite the DOJ report as evidence. As usual Ice, your beliefs are just not supported by the evidence. The evidence and the witnesses say the young black teenager went for Officer Wilson’s gun while Officer Wilson was sitting inside his car. That is what the DOJ report says. It doesn’t say Officer Wilson drew his gun in order to accost a teenage black kid who was jaywalking. None of that happened and none of that is supported by the DOJ report as you claimed.
page 80 of this file, you will find the specific DOJ assertion of where and when Wilson drew his gun. It consists of summarizing Wilson's grand jury testimony version, and then stating that this account was "consistent" with four items of evidence: the wound to Brown's hand, the end location of one of the bullets, the bruises on Wilson's face, and the testimony of multiple witnesses who saw Brown's upper body or arms inside the car. http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul.../attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shootin
g_of_michael_brown_1.pdf[/QUOTE]
Did you read page 80?

This is extracted from page 80.

“The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. According to Wilson, when he backed up his SUV and attempted to get out to speak with Brown, Brown blocked him from opening the door. Brown then reached through the window and began to punch Wilson in the face, after which he reached for and gained control of Wilson’s firearm by putting his hand over Wilson’s hand. As Brown was struggling for the gun and pointing it into Wilson’s hip, Wilson gained control of the firearm and fired it just over his lap at Brown’s hand. The physical evidence corroborates Wilson’s account in that the bullet was recovered from the door panel just over Wilson’s lap, the base of Brown’s hand displayed injuries consistent with it being within inches of the muzzle of the gun, and Wilson had injuries to his jaw consistent with being struck. Witnesses 102, 103, and 104 all state that they saw Brown with the upper portion of his body and/or arms inside the SUV as he struggled with Wilson. These witnesses have given consistent statements, and their statements are also consistent with the physical evidence.”
The report also said Officer Wilson’s account was consistent with the forensic evidence and the testimony of eye witnesses. Nowhere in the DOJ report does it say Officer Wilson drew his gun in order to accost a black teenager as you asserted. The gun was drawn after that young black teenager attempted to take from Officer Wilson’s gun holster – one of “dem” many facts you like to ignore.

On However, this statement omits other evidence bearing on the matter (which is present in the same report ), omits consideration of the inconsistencies visible in what it does present, and omits consideration of earlier statements by Wilson that vary somewhat from the grand jury testimony.

Hmm, so now the DOJ report you previously cited as evidence for your cause is wrong? Unfortunately for you Ice, the DOJ report was complete and quite clear. There are no inconsistencies in the forensic data or among credible witnesses.

For example, the bruises sustained by Wilson were not in fact consistent with his account of being punched very hard in the face while seated with the door closed, as Brown was leaning in through the window - the bruises were to the back of his neck and jaw on the right side. Also, both shell casings were found outside the vehicle, which is difficult to reconcile with the ejection of a shell up and to the right from a gun held at the seated right hip and fired toward the closed driver's side door. And finally, the location of the bullet in the door panel, the wound to Brown's hand, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, are just as consistent with the first version of events we had from Wilson, which was that he was exiting the car when Brown slammed against the opening door and forced it back against him, prior to Brown's going for the gun in his hand through the window of the door.

Except, the experts don’t agree with you, the DOJ report which you initially offered as evidence, you now claim is flawed because you have learned it doesn’t support your beliefs. Are you a criminalist? Are you a firearms expert? The professionals, the people who do this thing for a living, disagree with you. So if you are to be believed, there must be a massive conspiracy afoot involving the Attorney General and the POTUS. Do you have any evidence of this conspiracy? No, as with everything else Ice, you don’t.

All of this physical evidence, which is consistent not with Wilson's second and thoroughly coached grand jury version but rather with the initial accounts we had from the time immediately after the event, indicates that Wilson had the gun in his hand as he first attempted to exit the car, before being assaulted. This would also make sense of Brown's insulting and arrogant comments as reported by his companion and Wilson, before Brown assaulted Wilson (all agree) , referring to Wilson's being "too much of a pussy to shoot me" or words to that effect, and similar auxiliary evidence.

Except there is no physical evidence which is inconsistent with Officer Wilson’s account or the account of witnesses which the DOJ and grand jury found credible and that was made quite clear in the DOJ report – one of “dem” many facts you like to ignore. And the fact is you have no credible evidence to support your version of events.
The unfortunate fact for you Ice is that your beliefs are just not support by the evidence. All you have is the words of Brown’s companion whose testimony isn’t consistent with the evidence and has evolved and changed as the facts became known.

I know the guys on one particular job did not have criminal records or any other instigating circumstances (such as warrants, etc) because they were working with me, on a job that required a very clean record ( I still use that background check for resume and work history info - it's the most thorough account of my life I've ever seen, significantly better informed and more accurate than my own memory).

So you ran background checks on your colleagues? How do you know the job requirements? Where you involved in the selection process? Did you hire your friends or are you just making assumptions? How do you know your friends are lying or your friends are similarly deluded? The fact is you don’t. You have a lot of assumption going on and no evidence.

Of course I do not know if they, and the black men I've had this from elsewhere, were all cooperating in telling the same false story year after year and job after job for my entire life. I just don't think that's the way to bet. Especially since it fully agrees with the pattern of incidents I have personally witnessed.

Have you ever considered they were acting on a belief; their cognitive biases were overriding reality. It’s a strange aspect of humanity. Our biases can make us believe some very strange things (e.g. cults). Memes are powerful, that’s why politicians use them.

 

[Billy T]

... I don’t know where you get your information; ...

That was clearly stated: I'm quoting the Baltimore Sun newspaper. I read it most days for nearly 20 years - It was a fine paper - one of the country's best. IMHO more balanced than the generally liberal Washington Post but in four decades or so, things can change.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

That was clearly stated: I'm quoting the Baltimore Sun newspaper. I read it most days for nearly 20 years - It was a fine paper - one of the country's best. IMHO more balanced than the generally liberal Washington Post but in four decades or so, things can change.

You've been out of the country for a long time. The Baltimore Sun was once, indeed, consistently regarded as one of America's ten best newspapers--in a class with the New York Times, the Denver Post, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and apparently one more that I've forgotten.

Several of those are no longer in that category, and if I'm not mistaken a couple of them are no longer in business. The Baltimore Sun has not sunk to the level of a bad newspaper, but it is not on anybody's top ten list. Without H. L. Mencken, "the Sage of Baltimore," it's just a local broadsheet.

Today, the Washington Post is considered the United States' newspaper of record in the domains of politics and international news. The New York Times serves that role in national news and business.

(Edited: the Baltimore newspaper is the Sun, not the Post)

 

[iceaura]

You said Officer Wilson drew his gun in order to accost a black teenager and then you went on to cite the DOJ report as evidence.

I not only cited it, I linked you to the exact page and other info supporting my inference.

- - - The evidence and the witnesses say the young black teenager went for Officer Wilson’s gun while Officer Wilson was sitting inside his car.

If you read what I linked, you'll find the witnesses merely corroborated the already obvious fact that Brown put his arms through the door window into the car and was shot at some point in that position. The evidence corroborates that Brown probably tried to control or take the gun. But the evidence does not well and plausibly support a seated Wilson with a holstered weapon being assaulted by Brown, firing the gun across his body at hip level, etc. The evidence supports a Wilson drawing his firearm and then attempting to exit the car, early on in the second confrontation.

It's not certain, of course. But it's the likeliest of the various possiblities.

And of course that would not be unusual in the police departments of most American cities.

Today, the Washington Post is considered the United States' newspaper of record in the domains of politics and international news

It's considered a mouthpiece for the insular Beltway worldview, the Israeli lobby, and various rightwing interests in international business and war, by the people whose reportage I have found reliable.

It supported the Iraq War, for example, biasing the news hole as well the opinion pages. It has both rightwing nutcases and diehard old line conservatives on its editorial pages (Krauthammer, Will. several others) but no hardline leftwing views (either authoritarian or libertarian) appear regularly (Dionne is as far left as they get). It's a solidly biased "conservative" paper. You can count on it to present most issues in Fox frame, - currently, all problems as situations in which "both sides" are to blame - for example.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It's [The Washington Post] considered a mouthpiece for the insular Beltway worldview, the Israeli lobby, and various rightwing interests in international business and war, by the people whose reportage I have found reliable. It supported the Iraq War, for example, biasing the news hole as well the opinion pages. It has both rightwing nutcases and diehard old line conservatives on its editorial pages (Krauthammer, Will. several others) but no hardline leftwing views (either authoritarian or libertarian) appear regularly (Dionne is as far left as they get). It's a solidly biased "conservative" paper. You can count on it to present most issues in Fox frame, - currently, all problems as situations in which "both sides" are to blame - for example.

I'm an unrepentant hippie who still calls all cops "pigs," and agitates for abortion, peace, the environment, secularism, science, higher taxes for the rich, immigrants, women, LGBT, the poor, ethnic minorities, decriminalization of all drugs, and a long litany of causes that are generally categorized as "liberal," if not downright "socialist."

The Post has a somewhat balanced editorial staff, so every day opinions are presented that are not liberal. This is just fine; it's boring (not to mention dangerous) to only read opinions that I agree with. Nonetheless, on the balance, I find it to be a fine organ of American-style liberalism.

If you're going to dismiss everyone who supported the Iraq war, you're not going to have very many people left that you can associate with. It was the Bush family who orchestrated that. In retrospect it was obviously Saudi money (what other Muslim population has that much?), Saudi planning, Saudi oversight (Osama was a member-by-marriage of the Saudi royal family and they surely knew where he was at any given moment) and predominantly Saudi people (the majority of the hijackers) who were responsible for 9/11. But the Bushes could hardly let us figure that out, since King Abdullah was their bosom buddy in the energy industry. It's almost certain that Backward Baby Bush knew that Saddam had nothing to do with it, but the Bushes were still angry at him for the invasion of Kuwait, another Bush family energy-industry collaborator.

Few Americans knew anything about the Middle East, so they didn't understand that Iraq was the only secular, pro-Western country in the entire region (Israel can hardly be called "secular")--which of course is why we supported Iraq (at the time a Sunni state) in their war against Iran (a Shiite kingdom that dreams of rebuilding the Persian Empire). Now Iraq is in tatters, what little stability the region had is long gone, and the Iranians now speak openly of the New Persian Empire stretching to Syria, and perhaps even Egypt and Turkey.

 

[joepistole]

I not only cited it, I linked you to the exact page and other info supporting my inference. If you read what I linked, you'll find the witnesses merely corroborated the already obvious fact that Brown put his arms through the door window into the car and was shot at some point in that position. The evidence corroborates that Brown probably tried to control or take the gun. But the evidence does not well and plausibly support a seated Wilson with a holstered weapon being assaulted by Brown, firing the gun across his body at hip level, etc. The evidence supports a Wilson drawing his firearm and then attempting to exit the car, early on in the second confrontation.

Except, the DOJ document very clearly and explicitly exonerates Officer Wilson. Now show me where in the DOJ document it says Officer Wilson drew his weapon in order to assault a black teenager who was merely jaywalking as you have repeatedly alleged. You can’t because the DOJ report doesn’t say or even remotely infer that.

Per my previous post, this is what the DOJ report said on page 80:

“The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment”.

That means Officer Wilson was assaulted by that young black teenager while Officer Wilson was seated in his patrol car. In short, you are making shit up again Ice. You are either a complete idiot or being dishonest.

It's not certain, of course. But it's the likeliest of the various possiblities.

Except it isn’t and that fact is reflected in the DOJ report – one of “dem” inconvenient facts again. The DOJ report just doesn’t support your beliefs. That is the bottom line.

 

[iceaura]

The Post has a somewhat balanced editorial staff,

No, it doesn't. It has Rightwing extremists, Rightwing moderates, and essentially no Lefties. It's farthest Left regular opinion columnist is EJ Dionne, whose stance is about equivalent to the Clinton administration's governing ideology.

If you're going to dismiss everyone who supported the Iraq war, you're not going to have very many people left that you can associate with.

A lot more than you seem to think. The political movement against the Iraq War had 135 US Congressmen openly voting against giving W war powers, and a good many of the rest justifying their yes vote not on the basis of war support but on denial of the nature of the legislation.

The list of contributors to the public discussion who had the Iraq War and W's administration essentially figured out, well in advance of of its launching in 2003, is a long one. And the fates of these people - their exclusion from the well-compensated ranks of the media punditry, their electoral defeats and the nature of the campaigns run against them, their inability to land well-paid and well-publicized fake book contracts or sinecures at think tanks, etc etc etc, - is an obvious aspect of major media operations in the US.

Here, for example, is the Washington Post being "balanced" in reviewing Russ Feingold's single book, a real one that made its money (if any) by retail sales: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...uss-feingold/2012/02/28/gIQATdIszR_story.html See what's missing? See what's there?

The revision of history necessary to claim a universal ignorance and confusion during the warmongering after 9/11 is fairly startling - it wasn't that long ago.

It was the Bush family who orchestrated that. In retrospect it was obviously Saudi money (what other Muslim population has that much?), Saudi planning, Saudi oversight (Osama was a member-by-marriage of the Saudi royal family and they surely knew where he was at any given moment) and predominantly Saudi people (the majority of the hijackers) who were responsible for 9/11. But the Bushes could hardly let us figure that out,

Speak for yourself. There was no "retrospect" involved.

The actual American Left had that figured out in advance - the important sources of support for Islamic terrorism had been common knowledge among "us" for many years at that point.

The Saudi (and ME oil interests generally) connections with the Bush family were of course also common knowledge in the rarified and untelevised discussions of the Left - common source of campaign humor when W was first running for Pres, in 2000.

Except, the DOJ document very clearly and explicitly exonerates Officer Wilson.

No, it doesn't. It justifies not prosecuting him for one particular type of Federal crime, and that only. It explicitly denies, in several places including the conclusions after page 80 in my link, finding on various issues of misconduct, incompetence, and State level crime.

 

[joepistole]

No, it doesn't. It justifies not prosecuting him for one particular type of Federal crime, and that only. It explicitly denies, in several places including the conclusions after page 80 in my link, finding on various issues of misconduct, incompetence, and State level crime.

LOL, except it does. I have cut and pasted and referenced those words from the DOJ report into Sciforums countless times for you. I posted page 80 many times, it clearly doesn't say what you claim it says (e.g. my last post). The DOJ report doesn't say what you claim it says. That is the bottom line Ice. It absolves Officer Wilson...period. And it certainly doesn't back up your assertion Officer Wilson drew his gun in order to assault a black teenager who was jaywalking. Officer Wilson didn't draw his gun prior to the confrontation and that black teenager wasn't jaywalking. The truth matters PJ.

 

[iceaura]

Except, the DOJ document very clearly and explicitly exonerates Officer Wilson.

Of what?

It explicitly refuses to consider misconduct, poor judgment, misperceptions, and violations of policy, for example.

And please look up "exonerate" in the dictionary. Lots of people found actually innocent of a crime in actual trials, where the inconsistencies in their stories have been subjected to questioning and the problems cleared up, have not been thereby "exonerated" of everything bad they did.

And it certainly doesn't back up your assertion Officer Wilson drew his gun in order to assault a black teenager who was jaywalking.

What it does back up, by providing multiple kinds of evidence, is my actual assertion - that Wilson appears to have drawn his firearm prior to his attempting to exit the car in the second confrontation, before he realized Brown was a robbery suspect, before Brown slammed the door back and reached inside, and before he was hit by Brown; and that Wilson's differing account aligns poorly with the physical evidence, other sequences of event being more likely given the physical facts as the DOJ lays them out.

And that entire scene was merely one example, an unnecessary one, of the well known circumstance that US police officers tend to draw their firearms earlier and more often in confrontations with black people, especially black men.

Which in turn helps explain the disproportionate number of unarmed black men shot by police. It's much easier to shoot somebody if you are already pointing a gun at them.

 

[joepistole]

Of what?

It explicitly refuses to consider misconduct, poor judgment, misperceptions, and violations of policy, for example.

And please look up "exonerate" in the dictionary. Lots of people found actually innocent of a crime in actual trials, where the inconsistencies in their stories have been subjected to questioning and the problems cleared up, have not been thereby "exonerated" of everything bad they did.
What it does back up, by providing multiple kinds of evidence, is my actual assertion - that Wilson appears to have drawn his firearm prior to his attempting to exit the car in the second confrontation, before he realized Brown was a robbery suspect, before Brown slammed the door back and reached inside, and before he was hit by Brown; and that Wilson's differing account aligns poorly with the physical evidence, other sequences of event being more likely given the physical facts as the DOJ lays them out.

And that entire scene was merely one example, an unnecessary one, of the well known circumstance that US police officers tend to draw their firearms earlier and more often in confrontations with black people, especially black men.

Which in turn helps explain the disproportionate number of unarmed black men shot by police. It's much easier to shoot somebody if you are already pointing a gun at them.

Except the DOJ report does none of those things, and as much as you dislike it, the DOJ report does exonerate Officer Wilson of wrong doing. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word exonerate, though I doubt it would do any good.

 

[Billy T]

Freddy was not the first, but got more national notice by dying in police custody of injuries he recieved.

(Reuters) - A Baltimore police officer who could be seen in a surveillance video beating an unarmed black suspect during an arrest last year pleaded guilty to assault on Friday and was sentenced to six months in jail*, the Baltimore Sun newspaper reported.
The Sun reported that officer Vincent Cosom was suspended from the police force after the video, which shows him repeatedly punching Kollin Truss in the face last June, was made public.
A lawsuit that Truss filed against Cosom is pending.
The sentence comes just weeks after protests in Baltimore over the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray from spinal injuries suffered in police custody were punctuated by a day of looting and arson.

* The change is that now the bad cops pay a price for injury of unarmed black men. Perhaps the new DA is partly responsible for that change? Again this only happened due to being caught by video camera.

 

[iceaura]

Except the DOJ report does none of those things, and as much as you dislike it, the DOJ report does exonerate Officer Wilson of wrong doing.

Here's the link again. http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf Pay attention. You are misreading this kind of language:

The report also said Officer Wilson’s account was consistent with the forensic evidence and the testimony of eye witnesses

as exoneration. Wilson't carefully coached Grand Jury account was "consistent" with the evidence in that it did not directly and necessarily conflict with most of it. But other accounts, different from Wilson's, would also be consistent with this evidence - and several are far more likely. There are lots of possible accounts that explain Wilson being bruised on the back of his neck and the back of his jaw on the right side (and nowhere else on his face or head) that agree fully with the eyewitness accounts and all the other evidence, but differ from Wilson's account of being punched by Brown through the car window while seated. And most of them are far more probable - it isn't easy to punch the back of the driver's neck on the right side while leaning through the driver's window, and it's hard to figure out exactly how that happened. But if Wilson was getting out of the car with the gun in his hand, and Brown slammed the door on him mid exit (which agrees with all witness accounts) then it's easy to see how Wilson's head got slammed against the roofline or the like in exactly the right places. And so forth.

If we go with the eyewitnesses and the forensic evidence, and ignore Wilson, it's easy to get everything to fit. It's only Wilson's account that forces us to handle these odd little facts that don't easily line up.

The physical evidence and circumstances I referred to are in their various subsections, easily found in the table of contents. They render Wilson's account less likely than other possibilities, and the DOJ report does not deal with that matter, or refer to the issue - since it is evaluating a criminal case involving a particular law and crime, not making book on the overall probability that Wilson was fudging his story. And so its findings of consistency etc are not exonerations, but justifications for not prosecuting Wilson under a particular Federal law.

One of the explicit refusals to exonerate Wilson of doing wrong (there are several in the body of the report) is in the conclusions, section V, page 86, and I quote it below:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

" - - - The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). "

And one of the more obvious possibilities of misconduct in the incident was Wilson's apparent drawing of his gun - not his firing of it, but his drawing of it - too early in the encounter. And in doing so, if he did, he obviously would have been doing nothing unusual, nothing thought worthy of inquiry or emphasis or even remark by his fellow officers or the Ferguson officials - the matter appears to have been a non-issue, not defended or criticized or noted in the first place.

That's the reason I mentioned the case here - such patterns of behavior in police officers in the US are common, and they are not themselves considered crimes or shown as visible in the death and injury stats. They contribute to the context in which the occasional killing takes place, is all, and seem to me at least a partial explanation for the racial patterns and so forth the killings display.

 

[joepistole]

Here's the link again. http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf Pay attention.

LOL, thanks for posting the link I have repeatedly given you. The unfortunate fact for you is that DOJ report doesn’t support even an iota of your claims, not one. That is why you cannot and have not quoted any of the text in that report as I have repeatedly done. Referencing the DOJ report and pretending that it supports your beliefs is simply dishonest or extremely deluded.

You are misreading this kind of language: as exoneration. Wilson't carefully coached Grand Jury account was "consistent" with the evidence in that it did not directly and necessarily conflict with most of it.

And where is your evidence Officer Wilson’s account was “carefully coached” as you have repeatedly alleged? It’s with the rest of your alleged evidence, it doesn’t exit. Where is the evidence of evidence tampering as you have repeatedly alleged? It’s with your other evidence, it doesn’t exit.

But other accounts, different from Wilson's, would also be consistent with this evidence - and several are far more likely.

Except that isn’t what the DOJ report found.

There are lots of possible accounts that explain Wilson being bruised on the back of his neck and the back of his jaw on the right side (and nowhere else on his face or head) that agree fully with the eyewitness accounts and all the other evidence, but differ from Wilson's account of being punched by Brown through the car window while seated. And most of them are far more probable - it isn't easy to punch the back of the driver's neck on the right side while leaning through the driver's window, and it's hard to figure out exactly how that happened. But if Wilson was getting out of the car with the gun in his hand, and Brown slammed the door on him mid exit (which agrees with all witness accounts) then it's easy to see how Wilson's head got slammed against the roofline or the like in exactly the right places. And so forth.
If we go with the eyewitnesses and the forensic evidence, and ignore Wilson, it's easy to get everything to fit. It's only Wilson's account that forces us to handle these odd little facts that don't easily line up.

Except it isn’t. The unfortunate fact for you is the DOJ report supports and exonerates Officer Wilson of wrong doing. And you have no evidence Officer Wilson drew his weapon in order to accost two black men who were jay walking. The evidence clearly shows, Officer Wilson approached the black teenagers because they were walking down the middle of a street and his gun was not drawn. The DOJ report clearly shows Officer Wilson was struck by that black teenager and that black teenager went for Officer Wilson’s gun which was holstered.

The physical evidence and circumstances I referred to are in their various subsections, easily found in the table of contents. They render Wilson's account less likely than other possibilities, and the DOJ report does not deal with that matter, or refer to the issue - since it is evaluating a criminal case involving a particular law and crime, not making book on the overall probability that Wilson was fudging his story. And so its findings of consistency etc are not exonerations, but justifications for not prosecuting Wilson under a particular Federal law.

Oh, then where are they, because they are not in the DOJ report?

 

[joepistole]

One of the explicit refusals to exonerate Wilson of doing wrong (there are several in the body of the report) is in the conclusions, section V, page 86, and I quote it below:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
" - - - The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). "

LOL, well that is a selective editing of the text, so selective as to be totally irrelevant. And that text isn’t a refusal to exonerate Officer Wilson much less an “explicit” one. As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, below is the part you left out, probably because it is not consistent with your beliefs.
“As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution).” - DOJ Report

What don't you understand about he words, "there is no evidence". That is pretty explicit.

And one of the more obvious possibilities of misconduct in the incident was Wilson's apparent drawing of his gun - not his firing of it, but his drawing of it - too early in the encounter. And in doing so, if he did, he obviously would have been doing nothing unusual, nothing thought worthy of inquiry or emphasis or even remark by his fellow officers or the Ferguson officials - the matter appears to have been a non-issue, not defended or criticized or noted in the first place.

Except as usual, you have no evidence to support your belief that Officer Wilson prematurely drew his weapon. Per the previously referenced portions of the DOJ report, the DOJ found Officer Wilson acted reasonably and that conclusion is supported by the evidence and witness testimony.
“For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.” – DOJ Report

That's the reason I mentioned the case here - such patterns of behavior in police officers in the US are common, and they are not themselves considered crimes or shown as visible in the death and injury stats. They contribute to the context in which the occasional killing takes place, is all, and seem to me at least a partial explanation for the racial patterns and so forth the killings display.

Hmm, so you find it bad or somehow reprehensible that Police Officers act reasonably and in compliance with the law and defend themselves when they are threatened? Ok, well I guess that says it all.

 

[pjdude1219]

Except as usual, you have no evidence to support your belief that Officer Wilson prematurely drew his weapon. Per the previously referenced portions of the DOJ report, the DOJ found Officer Wilson acted reasonably and that conclusion is supported by the evidence and witness testimony.
“For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.” – DOJ Report

you mean the same evidence that was incomplete because the police destroyed forensic evidence for which we can only assume because it show wilson at fault?

Hmm, so you find it bad or somehow reprehensible that Police Officers act reasonably and in compliance with the law and defend themselves when they are threatened? Ok, well I guess that says it all.

probably ice finds it reprehensible to have a poorly trained jackass gets to kill someone claim he was afraid and get away with it with out any real investigation.

 

[joepistole]

you mean the same evidence that was incomplete because the police destroyed forensic evidence for which we can only assume because it show wilson at fault?

Oh, and you have evidence the evidence was incomplete or that the police destroyed forensic evidence or are you just making it up as usual? Where is your evidence PJ? Let me guess, as usual, you have none. The unpleasant fact for you is the evidence and the witness testimony fit together like a glove and you have no evidence tampering. You are just making stuff up again PJ.

probably ice finds it reprehensible to have a poorly trained jackass gets to kill someone claim he was afraid and get away with it with out any real innvestigation.

Except, there is no evidence Officer Wilson was poorly trained or acted in anyway inappropriately...one of "dem"many minor details again. It wasn't just Officer Wilson who perceived the mortal threat. If you would read the DOJ report or my last post where I quote the DOJ report, you would know witnesses to the event also perceived Officer Wilson faced a mortal threat during his confrontation with that black teenager. Unfortunately for you PJ, facts do matter.

 

[iceaura]

The unfortunate fact for you is that DOJ report doesn’t support even an iota of your claims, not one. That is why you cannot and have not quoted any of the text in that report

I have quoted text, specified page numbers, and summarized physical facts as explicitly presented in that report. Several times. Addressed to you, explicitly, even.

What don't you understand about he words, "there is no evidence". That is pretty explicit.

The words to be understood, as you yourself quoted, are: "there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. "

Note the qualifiers "credible" and "willfully", which are key terms in the decision to close the case and not prosecute Wilson for that one Federal crime still at issue.

That DOJ finding does not even completely exonerate Wilson from shooting Brown as Brown was running away, or as Brown's hands were raised, by racially biased mistake or in a racial bigotry induced panic rather than "willfully". It does not even begin to exonerate Wilson from claims of doing wrong, misconduct, poor judgment and bad behavior in general, etc. And as I quoted, these other matters were explicitly dismissed as none of the DOJ's business, and not included in its findings.

Except as usual, you have no evidence to support your belief that Officer Wilson prematurely drew his weapon.

So you have read about none of the several times reposted items of evidence, taken directly from the DOJ report and easily found in its table of contents, that do support exactly that inference? Why not?

They are not complicated, and neither is the reasoning - here are five of them: Wilson sustained bruises to the back of his neck and jaw on the right side and nowhere else on his face or head; the two shell casings ejected up and to the right from Wilson's gun from the two shots fired during the altercation at the car both ended up outside the car; the bullet from one of the shots was found in the door directly to Wilson's left and had entered on a downward trajectory; Brown made a disparaging reference to being shot before assaulting Wilson; Brown was shot in the right hand by a bullet that hit the tip of his right thumb and traveled toward the wrist.

Each of these physical facts is unlikely to be a consequence of the events as described in Wilson's account - not impossible, not legally "inconsistent", just hard to produce or explain. They are easily and effortlessly explained by a couple of different accounts, all of them in perfect agreement with eyewitness testimony but not in agreement with Wilson's details. These more likely accounts feature a gun already drawn or being drawn as Wilson attempted to exit the car, before or just after the door was slammed on him, and before Brown went for the gun through the car window. The DOJ makes no reference to these alternative scenarios, nor does it evaluate the relative likelihood of these different accounts, in part because - as it states - they were none of the DOJ's business. They did not bear on the crime under consideration.

But they do bear on the issues in this thread, as mentioned in passing during the observation that US policemen in many areas do by all accounts tend to draw their firearms much earlier and more often during encounters with black men. And such a circumstance would have obvious implications in any discussion of the frequency with which black men are shot by police, as well as the common perception of oppressive and abusive enforcement of the law against black populations and communities.

Except, there is no evidence Officer Wilson was poorly trained or acted in anyway inappropriately.

Good lord.

Uh, there is this one thing: an unarmed teenager shot dead in the street rather than under arrest and in jail. If you want to throw in the hail of bullets whacking into the nearby buildings and flying down the street, the damaged and shot up patrol car, the failure to secure his weapon during a confrontation with an erratic suspect, the botched evidence and crime scene security, the shifting and variable accounts, the officer's track record and hiring circumstances, and so forth, feel free.

The relevance here is that so much of the stuff that strikes the outside observer as odd seems to have been seen as normal by the local police on the scene.

And likewise in Baltimore.

If this is what the police expect from each other, the rest of us have a serious problem.

 

[joepistole]

I have quoted text, specified page numbers, and summarized physical facts as explicitly presented in that report. Several times. Addressed to you, explicitly, even.

Except, you haven’t supported your assertions with specific text from the DOJ document, in your last post you copy pasted 2 sentences from the DOJ document and those 2 sentences didn’t support your assertion. Prior to that, you made assertions that the DOJ document supported your beliefs, but as repeatedly demonstrated to you for months now and much to your chagrin, the DOJ document clearly and distinctly debunks your beliefs/assertions.

The words to be understood, as you yourself quoted, are: "there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. "

Yes, there is NO credible evidence which supports your assertions.

Note the qualifiers "credible" and "willfully", which are key terms in the decision to close the case and not prosecute Wilson for that one Federal crime still at issue.

So you are upset because the DOJ didn’t include non-credible evidence? And as previously umpteen times umpteen times, the previously referenced text in the DOJ document clearly exonerates Officer Wilson. There is absolutely NO evidence in the DOJ report which finds anything wrong with Officer Wilson’s actions in his confrontation with a young black teenager. There is nothing in the DOJ report which supports your assertion that Officer Wilson drew his weapon in order to confront a young black teenager who you allege was jaywalking. The unpleasant reality for you is Officer Wilson didn’t draw his gun in order to confront the young black teenager. Nor was the young black teenager (Brown) jaywalking – “dem” minor details again.

Note That DOJ finding does not even completely exonerate Wilson from shooting Brown as Brown was running away, or as Brown's hands were raised, by racially biased mistake or in a racial bigotry induced panic rather than "willfully". It does not even begin to exonerate Wilson from claims of doing wrong, misconduct, poor judgment and bad behavior in general, etc. And as I quoted, these other matters were explicitly dismissed as none of the DOJ's business, and not included in its findings.

Except it does clearly very clearly exonerate Officer Wilson, your inability or unwillingness to recognize fact doesn’t make it any less so. You cannot site anything in the DOJ document which in anyway indicts Officer Wilson of any crime or malfeasance. Because it doesn’t exist, you cannot support any of your many allegations with the DOJ document because your allegations are simply fiction. Are you now calming Officer unwillingly shot and killed Brown? If so, you are the only one making that claim. Not even Officer Wilson made that claim.
The meaning of the referenced text is quite clear, and the words “credible” and “willful” are not get out of jail passes for you. That referenced text clearly exonerates Officer Wilson of the charges you and others have repeatedly made against him.

Note So you have read about none of the several times reposted items of evidence, taken directly from the DOJ report and easily found in its table of contents, that do support exactly that inference? Why not?

Except with the exception of the last two posts, you haven't cited actual text. You have made vague references to the DOJ report. And none of your DOJ references are supportive of your assertions and beliefs. And in the last few posts you have cited text from the DOJ report which is in direct contradiction to your assertions - "dem" minor details again.

Where in the DOJ document does it find Officer guilty of ANY malfeasance? Where is that text? You can't, because it doesn't exist. Where in the DOJ report does it say Officer Wilson drew his weapon in order to confront a young black teenager who was merely jaywalking? You can't answer that, because it isn't in the DOJ report. The better question here is why can you not acknowledge clear English and simple fact? Instead you have to invent fiction and conspiracy theories for which you not even a shred of evidence. Why is it you pretend that the DOJ document says what it clearly does not? I think it's a severe case of cognitive dissonance on your part. There is a name for the kind of behavior you have exhibited in this and other threads, it's called "reducing".

They are not complicated, and neither is the reasoning - here are five of them: Wilson sustained bruises to the back of his neck and jaw on the right side and nowhere else on his face or head; the two shell casings ejected up and to the right from Wilson's gun from the two shots fired during the altercation at the car both ended up outside the car; the bullet from one of the shots was found in the door directly to Wilson's left and had entered on a downward trajectory; Brown made a disparaging reference to being shot before assaulting Wilson; Brown was shot in the right hand by a bullet that hit the tip of his right thumb and traveled toward the wrist.
Each of these physical facts is unlikely to be a consequence of the events as described in Wilson's account - not impossible, not legally "inconsistent", just hard to produce or explain. They are easily and effortlessly explained by a couple of different accounts, all of them in perfect agreement with eyewitness testimony but not in agreement with Wilson's details. These more likely accounts feature a gun already drawn or being drawn as Wilson attempted to exit the car, before or just after the door was slammed on him, and before Brown went for the gun through the car window. The DOJ makes no reference to these alternative scenarios, nor does it evaluate the relative likelihood of these different accounts, in part because - as it states - they were none of the DOJ's business. They did not bear on the crime under consideration.
But they do bear on the issues in this thread, as mentioned in passing during the observation that US policemen in many areas do by all accounts tend to draw their firearms much earlier and more often during encounters with black men. And such a circumstance would have obvious implications in any discussion of the frequency with which black men are shot by police, as well as the common perception of oppressive and abusive enforcement of the law against black populations and communities.

As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, the DOJ report and the grand jury findings are contrary to your beliefs. The experts don’t share your beliefs. Show me where in the DOJ report where it finds the physical evidence (e.g. Officer Wilson’s bruises, shell casings, etc.) inconsistent with Officer Wilson’s account and the account of witnesses? It doesn’t. In fact as previously and repeatedly quoted from the DOJ report, the DOJ report found the physical evidence and the witness testimony consistent with Officer Wilson’s account.

Good lord.
Uh, there is this one thing: an unarmed teenager shot dead in the street rather than under arrest and in jail. If you want to throw in the hail of bullets whacking into the nearby buildings and flying down the street, the damaged and shot up patrol car, the failure to secure his weapon during a confrontation with an erratic suspect, the botched evidence and crime scene security, the shifting and variable accounts, the officer's track record and hiring circumstances, and so forth, feel free.

Officer Wilson’s weapon was holstered, until Brown (that young black teenager) attempted to remove it. So is it now your position that keeping a gun holstered is a failure to secure the gun? Just where would you have officers secure their weapons?

The unpleasant fact for you is the grand jury and the DOJ both found no wrong doing on the part of Officer Wilson. Officer Wilson was justified in his use of lethal force. That is what the DOJ report found. It was Brown who chose to walk down the middle of the road and create a traffic hazard. It was Brown who first assaulted Officer Wilson. It was Brown who charged Officer Wilson and that is when Officer Wilson drew his gun and fired at Brown. Officer Wilson had the right to defend himself. And Brown could have avoided his death, simply by not assaulting Officer Wilson.

The relevance here is that so much of the stuff that strikes the outside observer as odd seems to have been seen as normal by the local police on the scene.
And likewise in Baltimore.
If this is what the police expect from each other, the rest of us have a serious problem.

And you think that makes sense?