[Vision2020] All evidence released by St. Louis County Grand Jury . . .

Fri Nov 28 19:07:27 PST 2014

If I recall correctly, Wilson claims Brown was running right at him, with
his head down line a linebacker.  It does appear from what little I know
about this that the grand jury had enough probable cause to indict Wilson,
based on the conflicting testimonies.  Sounds like the good old "good 'ol
boy" network at work once again.

I still don't see the obvious racial connection as far as Wilson is
concerned, though.  Were there any remarks that he made that were racist,
either during the encounter or after it?  Did he personally have a history
of racially motivated stops or harassments?  Not the Ferguson police force
in general, but he personally?

Paul

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Dorian Johnson, the friend that Michael Johnson was with at the time of
> the shooting, was the one who claimed that that Wilson had shot Brown in
> the back as they were fleeing.  He also told local TV stations that the two
> of them were surrendering when Wilson open fired on them with no warning.
>
> It was a confusing and chaotic scene, but from what I can tell, there's
> not much dispute that Brown and Wilson were tangled up in altercation with
> Wilson inside his squad car where Wilson started firing his weapon.  Brown
> and Johnson then fled, Brown got out of his vehicle and according to some
> witness accounts fired at them as they were running away.  Brown then
> apparently stopped, turned and faced Wilson with his arms raised, while
> Wilson kept firing.  When Brown was hit, it could have been that he started
> stumbling toward Wilson.  Wilson might have interpreted this as Brown
> rushing at him which in turn resulted in Wilson continuing to squeeze the
> trigger until his gun was emptied and was Brown was dead.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:32:16 -0800
> From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
> To: moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
>
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] All evidence released by St. Louis County Grand
> Jury . . .
>
> I'm not sure where I got the "shot in the back" thing from.  It might have
> been speculation from before the autopsy report came out.  Looking into it,
> I see that there were no wounds on the back reported in the autopsy.  I'm
> not sure what occurred between the time when Brown left the car and Wilson
> shot him as he was coming towards him.  I guess I need to look into it more.
>
> Paul
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> Where does this "shot in the back" notion come from? A quick look at the
> autopsy diagram published in the NYT does not bear this out at all.
> Also when the PA detailed the bullet wounds during his announcement of no
> bill there was no mention of any bullet entry wound in the victims back.
>
> g
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Paul Rumelhart <paul.rumelhart at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> OK, you don't want me mixing my question about whether or not there was a
> racial component in a thread about the grand jury not indicting him. That's
> fine, I'll hit that in another thread.
>
> My thoughts on the grand jury indictment, based on what I understand about
> the facts of the case (not having read all the documents posted in this
> thread yet) are that he should probably have been indicted and that the
> grand jury, in my opinion, was wrong here.  I also take your point about
> how the prosecutor entered exculpatory evidence.  I'm wondering if that's
> common for cops who do up before a grand jury or if that's special to this
> case.
>
> Anyway, as I understand it, it went down something like this:  Wilson
> tells Brown to get out of the road, Brown tells him to fuck off or
> whatever, Wilson realizes he might be the guy involved in the robbery that
> went out over the radio, tells him he needs to talk to him, starts to get
> out of his car, gets pushed back in the car by Brown, is then hit in the
> face, decides to get his weapon out, they struggle for it, it goes off
> wounding Brown in the hand.  Brown walks away.  He gets about 30 feet
> before Wilson shoots him in the back.  Brown then rushes Wilson, who
> empties his magazine into him, finally bringing him down.
>
> Based on the above, which may or may not match reality (I'm still reading
> about it), Wilson should be indicted to stand trial because of the shot he
> made when he was walking away, which ended up with him having to kill him
> in self-defense when Brown rushed him.  But that's just my opinion.
>
> I'll discuss the "Wilson shoots Brown for jaywalking because he is black"
> take on things in another thread some other time.
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Paul,
>
> You're mixing two things up. The question for the grand jury was not
> whether the killing was racially motivated, so that issue should be kept
> separate. Better yet, because it's not relevant, it should be set aside
> completely.
>
> The prosecutor had evidence that a crime was committed, and usually would
> only give that evidence. On the basis of that evidence, the grand jury
> would usually indict.
>
> That's not what happened here. The state also provided contradictory
> evidence. In the usual course of events, the defense would offer that
> evidence at trial, after the indictment. I only dealt with two felonies
> brought by grand juries, and I sure don't recall any exculpatory evidence
> being offered by the state in those cases.
>
> The prosecutor could also have chosen to file a complaint and then have a
> preliminary hearing before a judge. At that hearing the burden would be the
> same, to show probable cause a crime occurred. That's how most of the
> felonies I worked on took place. As a prosecutor I didn't offer ANY
> evidence that weakened my case: I was there to get the defendant bound
> over, not to let them walk. And as a defense lawyer, I never sa
>
> I also think you are misstating matters when you say, "Yet the riots are
> happening because a lot of people seem to think Wilson killed Brown because
> he was black.  I'm just wondering if they are just making shit up, or if
> they have reason to believe that."
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:55:19 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] All evidence released by St. Louis County Grand
> Jury . . .
> From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> I don't know a lot about how a grand jury works.  I'm just asking in
> general.  The media seems to want to crucify this guy for a
> racially-motivated killing.  I'm just asking if that is justified somehow.
> Nothing I've heard of so far leads me to believe that this incident was
> racially motivated.
>
> I understand that that point is not what the grand jury was looking at,
> but rather whether or not there is enough evidence that a crime had been
> committed (at least as I understand it).  Yet the riots are happening
> because a lot of people seem to think Wilson killed Brown because he was
> black.  I'm just wondering if they are just making shit up, or if they have
> reason to believe that.
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> The grand jury didn't need evidence of racial animus.  You're creating
> requirements that don't exist, and raising the bar for prosecution, whether
> you realize it or not. I don't know if you understand the point I made this
> morning.
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:42:12 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] All evidence released by St. Louis County Grand
> Jury . . .
> From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> CC: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> I haven't gone through the transcripts yet.  Is there evidence that Wilson
> acted in a racially-biased manner?  Any comments that he made?  Any past
> history of abuse?  All I've seen so far in the media is a lot of
> allegations of abuse of black citizens by the cops in general in the past,
> descriptions of how blacks fear the police in general, lots of assumptions
> about a racial component, and it does appear that they handled him with kid
> gloves during the grand jury proceedings, but I haven't seen anything
> brought up showing that Wilson treated Brown any differently than he would
> anyone else who was his size, manifested his amount of rage, and attacked
> him in his cop car.  Yet, they seem to want Wilson tossed in prison
> apparently to serve as some kind of sacrifice on the altar of race
> relations.  Is it justified?
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sunil asks <How often do you see cops prosecuted by the prosecutors they
> work with regularly?>.  Not often.  The only case I can recall off the top
> of my head is the brutalization of Abner Louima in New York City about 15
> years ago.  It's an unfortunate situation.  I would have hoped for a system
> of greater checks and balance to ensure fair justice both for the family of
> the victim as well as for the perpetrator.  Most of all I would hope for
> continuous improvement of policies and procudures so that these types of
> incidents were reduced.  There was another tragedy just last weekend in
> Cleveland where officers fatally shot a 12-year old boy who was outside
> playing with an airsoft gun.  The trouble I have with all of these cases is
> wondering how I would react myself in that same exact situation.  Granted I
> have zero law enforcement training, but I'd guess I'd be subject to similar
> 'fight or flight' responses as most others.  I can't honestly say that in
> the heat of the moment after the situation had escalated that I would have
> reacted any differently than Michael Brown did had I been in his shoes or
> any differently than Darren Wilson did had I been wearing his badge.  And
> if I was ever in a jury pool on a case like this, I'd hope I'd just be
> excused, because I don't think I'd be capable of being impartial.  And yes,
> I am naive on many levels as well as extremely cynical on many others.
> It's not a good mix.  On this depressing note, have a great Thanksgiving.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:16:28 -0800
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] All evidence released by St. Louis County Grand
> Jury . . .
>
> Scott,
>
> You're still missing the central point: The state always puts on its
> strongest evidence, either before a grand jury or at a preliminary hearing.
> These are probable cause hearings. The question is, 'Is there probable
> cause that the individual committed this crime?' It's a low threshold, 51%,
> and defenses AREN'T relevant at this stage. It's almost unheard of for the
> state to put  on exculpatory evidence; that's not its role.
>
> This prosecutor did not do that. Instead he put on evidence that would
> cloud the case. No, I don't think this heralds a new era of prosecutorial
> enlightenment. Have you looked at this prosecutor's response to this
> killing from the beginning? The outcome is no surprise when  reviewed in
> that context.
>
> It's naive to think that this was a truth-seeking mission. It was not, and
> it arrived at the pre-ordained outcome. How often do you see cops
> prosecuted by the prosecutors they work with regularly?
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] All evidence released by St. Louis County Grand
> Jury . . .
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:40:24 -0700
>
> You know what Sunil?  You're right.  I was expecting everyone involved to
> do their job to the best of their ability for the integrity of the system.
> Maybe a'la the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case, a bulldog of a
> special prosecutor should have been assigned with a direct order to put
> forth the strongest prosecution case possible regardless of whether he or
> she was handed down an indictment from a grand jury.  Since the anger in
> the black community and the surrounding media frenzy centers around 'white
> cop kills black kid for the crime of jaywalking', it seems to me the best
> way of directly addressing this aspect would be for the prosecutor to put
> forth a clear and convincing case that this was a racially motivated
> killing by a white officer with a patterned, systematic, and provable
> history of racial hatred, discrimination, and harassment of blacks coupled
> with verifiable instances that he brutalized black suspects.
>
> Absent that, we have 1) videotaped evidence of a victim who is shown
> displaying two separate acts of aggression toward another person shortly
> before his fatal encounter with an armed law enforcement officer, 2)
> evidence and witness testimony of a violent altercation between the victim
> outside of the police car and the officer inside the police car whereby the
> officer initially fires his weapon, 3) the officer exiting his vehicle and
> unleashing a hail of gunfire until he has emptied his service revolver.
>
> Out of this the jury is tasked with determining criminal intent,
> justifiable shooting, other, or split decision (aka hung jury).
>
> ------------------------------
> From: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 22:10:46 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] All evidence released by St. Louis County Grand
> Jury . . .
>
> Scott,
>
> If the prosecutor wanted an indictment he'd have it. You're confusing this
> for a neutral process. He got the outcome he wanted with the grand jury for
> cover.
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:31:53 -0800
> To: moscowcares at moscow.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] All evidence released by St. Louis County Grand
> Jury . . .
>
> Is there any smoking gun?
>
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Moscow Cares <moscowcares at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> . . . accessible below.
>
> Courtesy of *St. Louis Public Radio* at:
>
> http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20141128/8d5ae1a5/attachment-0001.html>