Not impressed with the hands up BS displayed by the Rams WRs

[RamzFanz]

Yes.

Johnson did know that was what the cop would testify to because I'm betting the police told him. That's pure speculation but the guy changed his story many times and was in hot water with the law. Something simple like, "Brown handed you the stolen Cigarillos after he started his assault on Officer Wilson, didn't he?" could easily cause him to confirm that.

Only he did testify and we can read his testimony. He offered it as a fact unaided by suggestive questioning. Reaching for "the cops told him" is simply trying to implicate Wilson. It's not even remotely logical. Every change in Johnson's story was to eliminate lies that couldn't be true (choking Brown from a sitting position for no reason) either logically or in regards to the forensics that were publicly known.

It's the very fact that Johnson's testimony is completely false that I believe him when he unknowingly verifies Wilson's. By the way, Johnson wasn't in trouble with the police. He wasn't being charged in the robbery because he put his box of cigars back on the counter and didn't assault the owner.

 

[jrry32]

Only he did testify and we can read his testimony. He offered it as a fact unaided by suggestive questioning. Reaching for "the cops told him" is simply trying to implicate Wilson. It's not even remotely logical. Every change in Johnson's story was to eliminate lies that couldn't be true (choking Brown from a sitting position for no reason) either logically or in regards to the forensics that were publicly known.

It's the very fact that Johnson's testimony is completely false that I believe him when he unknowingly verifies Wilson's. By the way, Johnson wasn't in trouble with the police. He wasn't being charged in the robbery because he put his box of cigars back on the counter and didn't assault the owner.

He could have been charged as an accomplice. He could have been charged with obstruction of justice for lying.

His testimony at the grand jury means jackshit to me. That was months later. You can't argue that a guy is credible and not credible. He's one or the other. He can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Johnson changed his story for self preservation. He wanted to avoid getting in trouble. Not hard to believe he'd change his story to what the police wanted him to in order to better match Wilson's story.

 

[RamzFanz]

The bias I'm referring to is the systemic bias that is categorically true and undeniable.

I've already written that I don't know if Officer Wilson is guilty because the process was so faulty, but that in light of the evidence, unless his testimony fell apart on cross, he wouldn't be convicted.

I think that Officer Wilson's testimony was suspect enough that I would have like to seen him dealt with by an adversarial DA who sought an indictment and THEN he would have had the benefit of defense counsel. I think he should have been on paid leave pending these charges. Then on cross and under oath, we'd have a better idea of what exactly happened. Those who want to believe Officer Wilson believe him because he said so. I don't. He made several statements (like initially he stated he was struck in excess of 9 times. Subsequently, he stated it was "maybe" 2 times) that were inconsistent and should have been confronted. If at trial, they jury could reconcile them, then fine. If not, Officer Wilson would have to answer for that. But that would be up to the trial Jury who'd have the benefit of all the evidence in the context of trial presentation subject to contestation as opposed to the Grand Jury which is not remotely a trial and the question of guilt or innocence isn't a part of their deliberations.

Point is, I don't know what happened.

The DA McCulloch sure didn't do his community any favors with his poor lawyering on this and that's a huge part of the problem. If the DA had played this totally straight and by the book, it would have been a LOT easier to parse the racial issues from the legal issues. Unfortunately, the DA turned this whole mess into a big, damned stew leaving those with an agenda to view this as a big, fat Rorschach test.

It's really unfortunate for so many...and for the process which was badly misused for political purposes. Just really unfortunate.

I've come to the conclusion you just want to believe Wilson is guilty or the system is rigged in this particular case. We have discussed at length why Wilson would have a defense at grand jury. He had to. There is no crime if there is self-defense. Self-defense has to be established or he's indicted automatically. It IS a crime and he DID do it by his own confession and 100% of the evidence.

I wish you would provide evidence of Wilson changing his story. I don't find your quoted sources in other discussions as being credible.

 

[Boffo97]

I've come to the conclusion you just want to believe Wilson is guilty or the system is rigged in this particular case. We have discussed at length why Wilson would have a defense at grand jury. He had to. There is no crime if there is self-defense. Self-defense has to be established or he's indicted automatically. It IS a crime and he DID do it by his own confession and 100% of the evidence.

I wish you would provide evidence of Wilson changing his story. I don't find your quoted sources in other discussions as being credible.

And if a grand jury was not allowed to hear evidence of self defense then every single case of self defense, no matter how ludicrously obvious, would have to go to trial.

That obviously does not happen in the real world.

So by simple logic, if A implies B, and B is not true, A is not true.

 

[RamzFanz]

He could have been charged as an accomplice. He could have been charged with obstruction of justice for lying.

His testimony at the grand jury means jackshit to me. That was months later. You can't argue that a guy is credible and not credible. He's one or the other. He can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Johnson changed his story for self preservation. He wanted to avoid getting in trouble. Not hard to believe he'd change his story to what the police wanted him to in order to better match Wilson's story.

Fair enough. So now the cops rigged his story. That COULD happen. What you don't have is any argument that it DID happen, just speculation.

OK, so Johnson is 100% thrown out as a witness. That would simply tip the scales further into Wilson's account.

I notice that no one seems to care that there is no reason to not believe Wilson. ALL of the evidence supports his account or, at the least, doesn't refute it. No one came forward anywhere and said he's a bad guy, a liar, a racist, an abusive cop, cheats on his taxes , nothing. No history of discipline for bad behavior. No residents saying he was a bad cop. No uses of racist epitaphs in person or online.

I find it disingenuous that people want to believe his accusers who are not at all credible and disbelieve him when he appears to be a good person and citizen. Why is that?

 

[RamzFanz]

And if a grand jury was not allowed to hear evidence of self defense then every single case of self defense, no matter how ludicrously obvious, would have to go to trial.

That obviously does not happen in the real world.

So by simple logic, if A implies B, and B is not true, A is not true.

It's very straight forward.

The grand jury has two jobs. Determine if there was a crime. Determine if there is evidence of who committed that crime. In self-defense, there is always an ADMITTED crime and a CONFESSION. Case closed, indict.

Self-defense is a complete defense. If it is self-defense, there are NO CRIMES. Therefore, you MUST determine if self-defense existed, or not, or maybe not.

The feeding of the "prosecutor gave too much evidence" comes from the fact that self-defense cases rarely go to grand jury.

 

[jrry32]

Fair enough. So now the cops rigged his story. That COULD happen. What you don't have is any argument that it DID happen, just speculation.

Which is all you have that it is true after he changed his story multiple times. Johnson continuing to change his story would go towards my speculation.

OK, so Johnson is 100% thrown out as a witness. That would simply tip the scales further into Wilson's account.

Yes. Johnson continued to change his story. Nothing he says is believable. But then again, some of what Wilson says isn't believable. Too bad the Prosecution was absolutely worthle

I notice that no one seems to care that there is no reason to not believe Wilson. ALL of the evidence supports his account or, at the least, doesn't refute it. No one came forward anywhere and said he's a bad guy, a liar, a racist, an abusive cop, cheats on his taxes , nothing. No history of discipline for bad behavior. No residents saying he was a bad cop. No uses of racist epitaphs in person or online.

Other than him shooting an unarmed man?

I find it disingenuous that people want to believe his accusers who are not at all credible and disbelieve him when he appears to be a good person and citizen. Why is that?

I don't want to believe either of them. I want to believe the criminal justice system did its job...unfortunately, it didn't.

 

[Mackeyser]

Oh, well there's your problem. You can't believe anything from the Huffington post. That's like quoting Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, he had a knife. Yes the cops knew it. He had his hand in his jacket and wouldn't remove it which is why they drew their guns. Then he drew a knife from that pocket. The cops AND bystanders were yelling for him to drop the knife. He then came at the cops yelling "shoot me" and they didn't shoot. He looked at the bystanders and went off to the side which many believe he was avoiding getting a bystander shot. He then went at the police.

I don't care what color you are, that will get you shot. i just watched a video where they shot a white man with a hammer for coming at them.

You and I completely agree that there is bias and unequal justice. I just think people pick the wrong cases as examples. Wilson was defending himself. these cops were defending themselves. The Walmart and park shootings they were not.

I honestly don't care how many people the cops kill in actual self-defense. Dying isn't part of their job description.

I just watched the video as well. 23 seconds was NOT enough time to truly ascertain the situation. And I'm really bothered that immediately upon arriving at the scene, they are there, guns drawn. If the guy was that much a threat, why are there people milling about around him who could easily have been stabbed. That should have been a clue to the officers that the people weren't scared of him. Pull up a bit away and walk up.

TRY TALKING. Try anything other than pulling right up to him and expecting a troubled person to give instant compliance. Well, guess what. Irrespective of color, troubled people don't instantly comply. I've certainly seen enough of THAT at the VA. I've seen plenty of brother vets have issues and the VA police have to walk a line, especially with all the vets watching them. What's missing from these incidents lately are the attempts to de-escalate. From the initial position, to the initial approach to the initial stance, it's always aggressive with zero room for anything other than total capitulation. Short of that? Death. And that's if the guy gets a chance to capitulate.

And that's not how it's done in white neighborhoods. That procedure isn't the same. You look at the guy in Walmart. He wasn't even given a chance to surrender. NO "get on the ground". NO chance to follow any instructions. Nothing. Just...sight him and drop him.

While we may agree on the larger picture, we disagree on the pixels, apparently. The question I raise is WHEN do the police use non-lethal force? When are they held accountable? Because apparently, they can choke a guy to death for selling cigarettes on the street illegally, the pettiest of crimes. And by getting away with it with no consequences, do you think they won't resort to using chokes in the future rather than NON-lethal means? I sure don't have much faith in that.

Folks are far too quick to put the onus on citizens to never resist officers.

Since when? And what's the definition of resist? There are COUNTLESS videos online of an officer's definition of resist essentially being "anything other than the total and complete capitulation of the citizenry to the officers demands" when that's not legal or moral. But, we're supposed to do that ANYWAY? I agree that folks who push, shove or go farther are resisting. However, to speak? to ask questions? to clarify the charges? To deny unlawful requests? To properly and respectfully assert rights? THAT'S not resisting.

Just saw a video this week of a guy who got pulled over. Is standing outside his vehicle. Locks it. Cop asks to search it, guy says no, not without a warrant. Cop says stop wasting time, just open it. Guys stands his ground without being rude. Explains he has rights. If he wants to get a warrant, that's fine, but he won't do it without a warrant. Cop goes ballistic. Slaps the guy so hard he hits the deck. Fearing for his safety at this point, the guy opens his car and allows the search under duress.

Now, this is bad for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cop has committed assault on camera and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. I don't recall seeing any updates posted in the comments about the disposition of the person or the officer. Secondly, if the officer DID find contraband or anything illegal, it would have been inadmissible in court expressly due to the Fourth Amendment violation.

It's important for police to do things properly for their safety and the safety of others. Even if that cop were the best cop in the world having his worst day and he caught two serial killers in the midst of a multi-state killing spree... he'd have likely ruined ANY evidence in that car. So all of this "just do what the cop says" misses the point. The cop needs to follow the law at all times because his JOB is to protect the public and enforce the law. If he's not following the law, he's not doing his job... and in this age, he does not have the latitude to go "off script". The law is complicated enough. Officers don't have the ability to wing it like they're on some sitcom or in some buddy cop movie.

 

[RamzFanz]

Which is all you have that it is true after he changed his story multiple times. Johnson continuing to change his story would go towards my speculation.



Yes. Johnson continued to change his story. Nothing he says is believable. But then again, some of what Wilson says isn't believable. Too bad the Prosecution was absolutely worthle



Other than him shooting an unarmed man?



I don't want to believe either of them. I want to believe the criminal justice system did its job...unfortunately, it didn't.

Yes, other than shooting an unarmed man. I appreciate you saying man and not the convenient "teen" I see on biased media sites.

A cop with a clean history and reputation kills a man the first time he's ever fired his gun on the job. His story is completely in-line with the forensics and credible witnesses. We won't belive him because Brown, who was obviously erratic, handed off some cigars and we think that doesn't make sense. It's on Wilson to make Browns actions make sense?

 

[jrry32]

Yes, other than shooting an unarmed man. I appreciate you saying man and not the convenient "teen" I see on biased media sites.

A cop with a clean history and reputation kills a man the first time he's ever fired his gun on the job. His story is completely in-line with the forensics and credible witnesses. We won't belive him because Brown, who was obviously erratic, handed off some cigars and we think that doesn't make sense. It's on Wilson to make Browns actions make sense?

No. I don't believe him because his story doesn't make sense and the prosecution did nothing to attack it.

Had the prosecution really came after him. Had they acted like REAL attorneys. I would be inclined to believe Wilson. But they threw the case. Their effort and lawyering were pitiful. They didn't push him or press him in areas where his story was questionable.

 

[RamzFanz]

I just watched the video as well. 23 seconds was NOT enough time to truly ascertain the situation. And I'm really bothered that immediately upon arriving at the scene, they are there, guns drawn. If the guy was that much a threat, why are there people milling about around him who could easily have been stabbed. That should have been a clue to the officers that the people weren't scared of him. Pull up a bit away and walk up.

TRY TALKING. Try anything other than pulling right up to him and expecting a troubled person to give instant compliance. Well, guess what. Irrespective of color, troubled people don't instantly comply. I've certainly seen enough of THAT at the VA. I've seen plenty of brother vets have issues and the VA police have to walk a line, especially with all the vets watching them. What's missing from these incidents lately are the attempts to de-escalate. From the initial position, to the initial approach to the initial stance, it's always aggressive with zero room for anything other than total capitulation. Short of that? Death. And that's if the guy gets a chance to capitulate.

And that's not how it's done in white neighborhoods. That procedure isn't the same. You look at the guy in Walmart. He wasn't even given a chance to surrender. NO "get on the ground". NO chance to follow any instructions. Nothing. Just...sight him and drop him.

While we may agree on the larger picture, we disagree on the pixels, apparently. The question I raise is WHEN do the police use non-lethal force? When are they held accountable? Because apparently, they can choke a guy to death for selling cigarettes on the street illegally, the pettiest of crimes. And by getting away with it with no consequences, do you think they won't resort to using chokes in the future rather than NON-lethal means? I sure don't have much faith in that.

Folks are far too quick to put the onus on citizens to never resist officers.

Since when? And what's the definition of resist? There are COUNTLESS videos online of an officer's definition of resist essentially being "anything other than the total and complete capitulation of the citizenry to the officers demands" when that's not legal or moral. But, we're supposed to do that ANYWAY? I agree that folks who push, shove or go farther are resisting. However, to speak? to ask questions? to clarify the charges? To deny unlawful requests? To properly and respectfully assert rights? THAT'S not resisting.

Just saw a video this week of a guy who got pulled over. Is standing outside his vehicle. Locks it. Cop asks to search it, guy says no, not without a warrant. Cop says stop wasting time, just open it. Guys stands his ground without being rude. Explains he has rights. If he wants to get a warrant, that's fine, but he won't do it without a warrant. Cop goes ballistic. Slaps the guy so hard he hits the deck. Fearing for his safety at this point, the guy opens his car and allows the search under duress.

Now, this is bad for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cop has committed assault on camera and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. I don't recall seeing any updates posted in the comments about the disposition of the person or the officer. Secondly, if the officer DID find contraband or anything illegal, it would have been inadmissible in court expressly due to the Fourth Amendment violation.

It's important for police to do things properly for their safety and the safety of others. Even if that cop were the best cop in the world having his worst day and he caught two serial killers in the midst of a multi-state killing spree... he'd have likely ruined ANY evidence in that car. So all of this "just do what the cop says" misses the point. The cop needs to follow the law at all times because his JOB is to protect the public and enforce the law. If he's not following the law, he's not doing his job... and in this age, he does not have the latitude to go "off script". The law is complicated enough. Officers don't have the ability to wing it like they're on some sitcom or in some buddy cop movie.

Again, I am questioning your sources. In Walmart they did call out for him to drop the gun. Then they shot him down. The dude in STL did have a knife and did come at them. The officer at the SCENE gave an inaccurate account of what happened, slightly, and not in a way that changes the guilt or innocence, but I don't know if the cops involved gave false testimony. The guy who was choked wasn't choked for selling cigarettes. I don't know why they arrested him, the video edited that out which is very common.

Honestly, I'm interested in how media sources lie about these incidences and people believe them or don't believe them and repeat it anyway.

There was no hands up don't shoot. There was no killing for stealing sodas. There was no choking a man for selling cigarettes. It's all fabricated yet I have to hear it repeated over and over as fact.

We should be just as pissed at media that lies to us and sets off riots.

I agree with you about deescalation. Not in the cases you quote, because those are false, but in general. Why did those cops drive into that park and get out and shoot?!? It's crazy! Stop outside of the park. No one is in danger. Determine what could be going on. Warn the person to drop the gun. Same in Walmart. My god.

How does Brown and the choke guy start protests but no one is up in arms about the park or Walmart? I'd GO to those protests! I don't want crazy cops, but I also don't want people like Wilson to be hanged in the name of injustice.

 

[RamzFanz]

No. I don't believe him because his story doesn't make sense and the prosecution did nothing to attack it.

Had the prosecution really came after him. Had they acted like REAL attorneys. I would be inclined to believe Wilson. But they threw the case. Their effort and lawyering were pitiful. They didn't push him or press him in areas where his story was questionable.

Yeah, I agree. The prosecuting attorney let him off without pressing him.

The difference is you assume guilt of Wilson and I assume they put on a grand jury of an innocent man to placate the mob. If they had drilled him, I believe the result would be the same but the intelligent people would be satisfied. The mob wouldn't be. They couldn't care less that he appears to be a decent guy who saved his own life.

You are assuming he's lying because of the circumstances when there is no other real reason IMO. Nothing he said or did is not supported by the evidence or his history.

 

[RamzFanz]

This, to me, is a very interesting subject on many levels.

I want to thank you guys for debating openly and ROD for allowing it.

 

[jrry32]

Yeah, I agree. The prosecuting attorney let him off without pressing him.

The difference is you assume guilt of Wilson and I assume they put on a grand jury of an innocent man to placate the mob. If they had drilled him, I believe the result would be the same but the intelligent people would be satisfied. The mob wouldn't be. They couldn't care less that he appears to be a decent guy who saved his own life.

You are assuming he's lying because of the circumstances when there is no other real reason IMO. Nothing he said or did is not supported by the evidence or his history.

No, that's not the difference. I don't assume the guilt of Wilson. That's where you have it dead wrong.

 

[RamzFanz]

No, that's not the difference. I don't assume the guilt of Wilson. That's where you have it dead wrong.

You are assuming he is lying. No?

 

[rhinobean]

Why did the grand jury in NY not indict the cop who choked the man? That seemed like police brutality and negligence to me! Don't get it at all?

 

[Thordaddy]

The bias I'm referring to is the systemic bias that is categorically true and undeniable.

I've already written that I don't know if Officer Wilson is guilty because the process was so faulty, but that in light of the evidence, unless his testimony fell apart on cross, he wouldn't be convicted.

I think that Officer Wilson's testimony was suspect enough that I would have like to seen him dealt with by an adversarial DA who sought an indictment and THEN he would have had the benefit of defense counsel. I think he should have been on paid leave pending these charges. Then on cross and under oath, we'd have a better idea of what exactly happened. Those who want to believe Officer Wilson believe him because he said so. I don't. He made several statements (like initially he stated he was struck in excess of 9 times. Subsequently, he stated it was "maybe" 2 times) that were inconsistent and should have been confronted. If at trial, they jury could reconcile them, then fine. If not, Officer Wilson would have to answer for that. But that would be up to the trial Jury who'd have the benefit of all the evidence in the context of trial presentation subject to contestation as opposed to the Grand Jury which is not remotely a trial and the question of guilt or innocence isn't a part of their deliberations.

Point is, I don't know what happened.

The DA McCulloch sure didn't do his community any favors with his poor lawyering on this and that's a huge part of the problem. If the DA had played this totally straight and by the book, it would have been a LOT easier to parse the racial issues from the legal issues. Unfortunately, the DA turned this whole mess into a big, damned stew leaving those with an agenda to view this as a big, fat Rorschach test.

It's really unfortunate for so many...and for the process which was badly misused for political purposes. Just really unfortunate.

Mac I will submit to you that the good people of Ferguson would have been treated to the same riot had an indictment been returned,and then another when Wilson was acquitted ,and the same charges would be leveled then about racist political motivation. The people who didn't accept the Zimmerman verdict wouldn't accept ANYTHING but Wilson's head.

What is generally accepted here is that if this was a racially spawned occurrence that it MUST have been the cop who was the racist, and that it could not possibly BE that Mike Brown attacked Wilson more because he was white than because he was a cop. I call bullshit on that, there is a named common practice called "checking" that we both know exists , and I dare say it happens with all the frequency of racially motivated police misbehavior.

 

[Thordaddy]

Why did the grand jury in NY not indict the cop who choked the man? That seemed like police brutality and negligence to me! Don't get it at all?

From all I can tell about that case the hold the police officer had on him was according to police practice not a choke,the sad thing is his "crime" was selling loose cigarettes to people who couldn't afford a whole pack because of the inordinately high New York cigarette tax,which OF COURSE is regressive and saddles the poor .

 

[Boffo97]

From all I can tell about that case the hold the police officer had on him was according to police practice not a choke,the sad thing is his "crime" was selling loose cigarettes to people who couldn't afford a whole pack because of the inordinately high New York cigarette tax,which OF COURSE is regressive and saddles the poor .

This is true from what I can tell. I don't think it was racially motivated, but allowing such a hold (particularly on a man in such relatively poor health) is very poorly thought out procedure, and I think the wife is going to become a millionaire a few dozen times over.

That said, the settlement is going to be reduced because I think a judgment will say it was partly the victim's fault for resisting arrest. Even if one strongly believes that the arrest is unjust and without moral authority, you're not going to accomplish anything good for yourself.

 

[jrry32]

You are assuming he is lying. No?

No. I think his story doesn't make sense in certain parts and want him pressed on it. I don't assume his entire story is made up.

He can be embellishing parts of his story without the entire story being a lie.