Fergosun Decision Rendered... Predictions?

in his statement, the Prosecutor McCulloch didn't exactly make a case for a no-bill.. if I'm a potential rioter, I would take hold of these words... that Brown was shot in the front 6-7 times, from a distance.. and that followed several shots at close range by the squad car, after which Brown ran from the Officer..

it was never stated how close Brown was during the second round of shots, but the conclusion was that Brown must have been headed towards the Officer, based on the angle of the final (Believed to be final) couple of shots..

my take is the Grand Jury didn't conclude the Officer was justified, but it could not conclude that he wasn't... too many holes in the conflicting stories that couldn't be reconcilled.

Heard the report live (until the news anchor decided to start flapping his talking head jaws)

Biggest thing I caught was that all those bullshit claims about him being shot in the back or that the cop stodd over him and fired into his body while Brown was on the ground were found to be completely fabricated. And once the forensics came out, all those lying dirtbags who made those claims quickly changed their stories or shut the hell up.

Justice?

How about the accomplice to the strong arm robbery? Not only was he an accomplice to the robbery but he also gave outright provable lies to anyone who would listen until the forensic evidence showed him to be a lying dirtbag.

HE needs charged with perjury and since Brown died while leaving the scene of the crime when Brown got shot, shouldn't HE be held liable to some extent for the death? His lies are what helped inflame the population and made this into another race baiting cluster fuck.

HE needs charged with perjury and since Brown died while leaving the scene of the crime when Brown got shot, shouldn't HE be held liable to some extent for the death? His lies are what helped inflame the population and made this into another race baiting cluster fuck. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

good point, but probably not worth persuing.. several people told a similar tale, so it would be difficult to prove he outright lied.. liable for Brown's death? sure, in theory, but what could the Brown family get out of him? half of the cigarillos the pair stole together?

there is the spectre of a wrongful death suit against the police.. that would go over about as well as an Ebola Suit against Presbyterian.. that "Gentle Giant" wasn't so gentle..

The race baiters keep repeating that the dead 18 year old was found to not be armed.

Big fucking deal AFTER THE FACT!

Did the officer know that the 6'4" 292 pound male was only 18? How could he?

Did he KNOW that this 6'4" male was not armed at the time he noticed him walking down the middle of the street and matching the description of a person who had possibly just committed a strong arm roobery? How COULD the officer know whether Brown was armed or not? Police are trained to assume anyone they encounter is armed until searched. The officer never had a chance to find out if this man was armed or not.

The assclowns who keep saying that Brown was not armed need to understand that the entire sequence of events from the time the officer met the 2 men on the street until Brown was dead took approximately 90 second.

That includes the struggle at the door of the SUV, the defensive firing of 2 rounds inside the police SUV, the pursuit of Brown who had attacked the officer and the final shots that ended Brown's life.

The ONLY reason this made the national news was the race baiters mantra that this was a white cop shooting an unarmed kid.

Bullshit.

Race most likely had nothing to do with it.

The attitude of Brown after he had just committed robbery and was then walking down the middle of the street is probably what had the most to do with this incident.

So the police can shoot at a guy because they don't know if he's armed or not?? WTF kind of logic is that?

So the police can shoot at a guy because they don't know if he's armed or not?? WTF kind of logic is that? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Never do business with someone who can sue you for free (a lawyer), and never act aggressive toward someone who can justifiably shoot you (a policeman).

There was a reason boubon street was not touched during the new orleans riot. You have to make an example of the first few rioters and the word will get around.

The news shows this guy jump through a broken window steal a bunch of stuff and jump into a car and speed off .... Hmmmm I dont think he is a protester??? No cops doing anything about it ??? wtf it seems like they are letting them loot and riot???

So the police can shoot at a guy because they don't know if he's armed or not?? WTF kind of logic is that? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Yes, if you go after a cop or his gun with intent to cause harm or injury, armed or not, you will be shot numerous times. And it will hurt the whole time you are dying. And in the end you will be laying dead with your saggy pants hanging halfway off your ass in the middle of the street.

Moral of the story... If you go after a cops gun, your gonna have a bad time.

The race baiters keep repeating that the dead 18 year old was found to not be armed.

Big fucking deal AFTER THE FACT!

Did the officer know that the 6'4" 292 pound male was only 18? How could he?

Did he KNOW that this 6'4" male was not armed at the time he noticed him walking down the middle of the street and matching the description of a person who had possibly just committed a strong arm roobery? How COULD the officer know whether Brown was armed or not? Police are trained to assume anyone they encounter is armed until searched. The officer never had a chance to find out if this man was armed or not.

The assclowns who keep saying that Brown was not armed need to understand that the entire sequence of events from the time the officer met the 2 men on the street until Brown was dead took approximately 90 second.

That includes the struggle at the door of the SUV, the defensive firing of 2 rounds inside the police SUV, the pursuit of Brown who had attacked the officer and the final shots that ended Brown's life.

The ONLY reason this made the national news was the race baiters mantra that this was a white cop shooting an unarmed kid.

Bullshit.

Race most likely had nothing to do with it.

The attitude of Brown after he had just committed robbery and was then walking down the middle of the street is probably what had the most to do with this incident. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Wow...

Astonishing how those whom have NEVER IN THERE LIFE been subjected to racism think they know how it feel, what it is, and its influence in EVERY aspect of life for those whom are walking to walk. Please drop the Feaux News buzz words (race baiters) and try to see things outside of the bubble.

It was the job of the Grand Jury to decide if there was enough evidence to Indict the defendant... Ray Charles could see that there was. The conflicting accounts from eye witnesses were more than enough to justify a trial...

My take would be that once he reached in the vehicle and struck the officer he became a felon. Missouri has a fleeing felon law that protects officers who shoot fleeing felons in most situations. Also, as others have mentioned, someone doesn't necessarily have to be armed to pose a threat. The DA should have been able to figure all this out without wasting the resources involved in having a grand jury investigate. He was just shifting responsibility because he will at some point face re-election.

My take would be that once he reached in the vehicle and struck the officer he became a felon. Missouri has a fleeing felon law that protects officers who shoot fleeing felons in most situations. Also, as others have mentioned, someone doesn't necessarily have to be armed to pose a threat. The DA should have been able to figure all this out without wasting the resources involved in having a grand jury investigate. He was just shifting responsibility because he will at some point face re-election. Originally Posted by rcinokc

No one saw him strike the officer... That statement came from the officer himself and of course he would present an argument that's beneficial for his case and because he's a cop, his statements are presumed fact BUT there were SEVERAL eye witness accounts that render his statements false. Again the conflicting stories were enough to go to trial.

No one saw him strike the officer... That statement came from the officer himself and of course he would present an argument that's beneficial for his case and because he's a cop, his statements are presumed fact BUT there were SEVERAL eye witness accounts that render his statements false. Again the conflicting stories were enough to go to trial. Originally Posted by Frique-Me

The grand jury and the evidence disagrees with you.

My take would be that once he reached in the vehicle and struck the officer he became a felon. Missouri has a fleeing felon law that protects officers who shoot fleeing felons in most situations. Also, as others have mentioned, someone doesn't necessarily have to be armed to pose a threat. The DA should have been able to figure all this out without wasting the resources involved in having a grand jury investigate. He was just shifting responsibility because he will at some point face re-election. Originally Posted by rcinokc

I agree with you. Also factor in there are some who see the
melanin in my skin as a threat to their safety as well. this a fact and if you don't live it... YOU DONT KNOW.

The grand jury and the evidence disagrees with you. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

No... The only account of the kid reaching for the gun came from the officer. The "facts"/"evidence" as you call it were derived from that statement and are speculative at best. AGAIN... Conflicting witness accounts would normally trigger a trail. What makes this situation different??