St. Louis nogs rioting

[Left Seater]

I don't care what his friend said.

We know, never mind that his friend's statement was the catalyst for the civil unrest. Despite having serious holes and omissions.

I don't care what his friend said. Like I said, evidence. Care to supply any?

So are you saying that Brown's friend won't testify at the cop's trial? Imagine the outcry if the judge, jury or attorneys said that.

I don't care what his friend said.

We know, in your mind the cop is guilty of an execution. Skip the evidence gathering and go straight to the sentencing phase.

[Sirfindafold]

He's a semi-literate moron......

Feeling charitable today? Get laid this weekend?

[Moving Sale]

So you are not going to answer my question. Gotcha.

[Moving Sale]

He's a semi-literate moron......

Feeling charitable today? Get laid this weekend?

Too easy, I'll pass.

[Moving Sale]

We know, in your mind the cop is guilty of an execution. Skip the evidence gathering and go straight to the sentencing phase.

Sounds good.

Sin,

Nogs wait for cover of darkness to perform their misdeeds, like the chickenshits they truly are.

Oh. Well - kill the 67%, and everything ought to be okay.

I eagerly await the day when niqqers begin to walk upright and behave in a manner at least approximating human norms.

[Sirfindafold]

War Wagon, Papa Willie and mvscal must be Left Seater trolls.

[Left Seater]

If the good citizens didn't like the military style gear and tactics the cops were using, they prolly wont like that the governor has called out the National Guard.

Favorite clip of the day:

Police throwing tear gas at the crowd to get them to disperse and one guy picks one canister up and lobs it back at Police only to have it hit the traffic light and come right back at his dome.

:doh:

[Moving Sale]

I don't know if the first guy is. The first thing out of his mouth after the open was the "love it or leave it" fallacy so i turned the stupid fuck off at 1:32. The second guy might be, but all he did was say the same shit over and over and never offer a solution so I turned it off at 1:24.

[Moving Sale]

If you don't like mine answers why do you keep asking me questions?

[Carson]

all he did was say the same shit over and over and never offer a solution so I turned it off at 1:24.

That's how T1B feels about you, Quasimodo.

[Moving Sale]

Now it appears he basically caused his own death.

Do tell.

[Moving Sale]

You constantly use "black cock" as an insult, and then you get all pissy about the two videos I posted.

I didn't get all pissy, I told you what I thought of them. Are you on crack?

[Screw_Michigan]

This isn't about facts.

Oh, the irony is overwhelming.

[Left Seater]

This isn't about facts.

Oh, the irony is overwhelming.

Sam, he doesn't understand the term evidence, so decent chance he doesn't understand irony as well.

[Derron]

Just listen in and hear what is going down in the hood. Pretty interesting towards the evening when the burning, looting and pillaging start.

http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/17807/web

[Moving Sale]

She stated quite clearly that it appeared to her that the police officer was trying to pull the kid into his patrol car. Immediately I realized she had just saved the cop. Now whether this person's EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT of the action will be considered or not remains to be seen. But her stating the above seems to me to make it clear that the young man was aggressive and attacking the officer. You know damn well the cop wasn't dragging the guy into his car.

Let me make sure I am perfectly clear on your stance. You think it is clear that Big Mike "caused his own death" because some chick said the cop was trying to pull him into his car and I "know damn well" that that isn't what happened. Do I have that about right?

[Screw_Michigan]

Let me make sure I am perfectly clear on your stance. You think it is clear that Big Mike "caused his own death" because some chick said the cop was trying to pull him into his car and I "know damn well" that that isn't what happened. Do I have that about right?

Didn't you get the memo? Sam said nobody cares about "facts," and doesn't understand why that's an ironic take coming from him.

[poptart]

The witness was a 20-something black lady who was defending the shooting vic. In describing what she saw, she made it clear that Mr. Brown was aggressively attacking the police officer.

How many shots were fired -- and was deadly force necessary?

Shot twice in the head, and he was unarmed, is that right?

[poptart]

What would I do if I was in the situation, as you described it?

Well, Brown "charged" the officer, so we are told.
How close did he get?
I think I need to know that -- before I can say what I would have done.


Two shots in the head?
And he was not armed?

Could he not have shot him lower -- and stopped him?


Look, I'm not saying the two shots to the head were definitely uncalled for, but I am questioning it.

I'd like to think that the bar is set high for deadly force to be used and accepted.

Maybe it was justifiable.

What's for certain is that the rioting is unjustified, idiotic, and sociopathic.

[Moving Sale]

What would you do?

In a Court somewhere in the heart of California's central coast...

Objection, Your Honor. Counsel’s hypothetical question is misleading because it assumes a fact not in evidence and omits an important fact in evidence.

While in understand that counsel has wide latitude in using hypothetical questions [Evid. Code §721] and that the hypothetical may include facts that are not established beyond all controversy, [People v. Zepeda (2001)] this can only be done so long as the basis of the question is sufficiently supported by the evidence adduced at trial or reasonably inferred from the evidence. [People v. Boyette (2002)] Here, Counsel attempts to ask a question which contains a purported fact that is not established, namely that there was a struggle for the gun. Your Honor, the police have never released any DNA Results from the gun nor has any witness testified that Big Mike's hand or hands were ever inside the car near the time of the initial shot, therefore I would object on those grounds.

In addition I would object in that it omits evidence that the victim was shot at least once when his back was facing the officer as Miss Mitchell and others have testified too, as well as the testimony of Dr. Baden, which stated that Miss Mitchell's testimony was not inconsistent with his findings.

This hypothetical question is therefore not rooted in fact and is not reliable as required by Gardeley.People v. Gardeley (1993)]

Substantially lifted from Judge J. Michael Byrne (Ret.) & Judge Gregory H. Ward

[jiminphilly]

In addition I would object in that it omits evidence that the victim was shot at least once when his back was facing the officer as Miss Mitchell and others have testified too, as well as the testimony of Dr. Baden, which stated that Miss Mitchell's testimony was not inconsistent with his findings.

Link?

[mvscal]

Well, Brown "charged" the officer, so we are told.
How close did he get?
I think I need to know that -- before I can say what I would have done.

No, we don't need to know any such thing. If, after a violent assault, he ignores a command to halt and charges, you put him down no questions asked and it is a "good shoot."

[Moving Sale]

Look, I hate that the guy was killed. Maybe the shots to the head were way overkill. Could be. But the evidence (from eyewitnesses) indicates that the kid was the aggressor and attacked the officer.

That is just not true. At least three people have said he was shot when his back was to the officer and I have not heard one person say they saw Big Mike hit or attack the officer first.

But the evidence we're aware of at this point seems to say he caused his own death.

You mean sin quo non or proximate cause, or both? I don't see either. But for what he did the officer still could have acted like a human and not shot him and it does not follow that you should be shot for jaywalking.

[Moving Sale]

Overruled. There is sufficient witness testimony that the decedent struck the officer while the officer was seated in his squad car and that there was a struggle for the officer's gun, which discharged while the officer was still within the squad car. No DNA results are required in this instance and I instruct the jury to disregard the statement regarding DNA results. Furthermore, you need to re-read your case law, which prescribes the limits on hypothetical questions that can be asked by prosecutors, which bear the burden of proof, and not on hypothetical questions that can be asked by defense attorneys, which bear no such burden.

Could your Honor please state the name or names of the witness or witnesses that have stated the victim struck the officer when the officer was seated in the car for the record on any possible appeal? I also believe I stated the cases that prescribe the DAs limits, but since you have heard me cite those cases and still ruled as you have, I will not comment further. Thank you your Honor.

[Moving Sale]

In addition I would object in that it omits evidence that the victim was shot at least once when his back was facing the officer as Miss Mitchell and others have testified too, as well as the testimony of Dr. Baden, which stated that Miss Mitchell's testimony was not inconsistent with his findings.

Link?

Are you an idiot or just playing on the net. I just told you one of the witness's name. You have a google on your internet right?

[Screw_Michigan]

What would you do?

In a Court somewhere in the heart of California's central coast...

Objection, Your Honor. Counsel’s hypothetical question is misleading because it assumes a fact not in evidence and omits an important fact in evidence.

While in understand that counsel has wide latitude in using hypothetical questions [Evid. Code §721] and that the hypothetical may include facts that are not established beyond all controversy, [People v. Zepeda (2001)] this can only be done so long as the basis of the question is sufficiently supported by the evidence adduced at trial or reasonably inferred from the evidence. [People v. Boyette (2002)] Here, Counsel attempts to ask a question which contains a purported fact that is not established, namely that there was a struggle for the gun. Your Honor, the police have never released any DNA Results from the gun nor has any witness testified that Big Mike's hand or hands were ever inside the car near the time of the initial shot, therefore I would object on those grounds.

In addition I would object in that it omits evidence that the victim was shot at least once when his back was facing the officer as Miss Mitchell and others have testified too, as well as the testimony of Dr. Baden, which stated that Miss Mitchell's testimony was not inconsistent with his findings.

This hypothetical question is therefore not rooted in fact and is not reliable as required by Gardeley.People v. Gardeley (1993)]

Substantially lifted from Judge J. Michael Byrne (Ret.) & Judge Gregory H. Ward

I just got done sitting on a jury in guess where. So that's what you guys are discussing at the bench when they turn on the background noise?

[Moving Sale]

If you're attacked and then charged at again, you have to do something.

If soup were nuts.... You have a name of any witness that says both those things?
And why do you keep asking me if I believe the officer grabbed the Vic thru the window? Yes I believe a shitty officer would do that and this guy appears to be a shitty officer.

SM, I would try and make that objection in front of the jury if the DDA would let me.

[poptart]

Do your rules of engagement with violent members of the public require the cop to take a shot or two before firing?

Brown didn't have a gun, so if the officer thought he was going to take a shot, he misread the situation.

But I don't think that's what happened.

It's as you said.
The officer might have rationally feared for his life -- due to being already assaulted and injured (supposedly), and then having this giant madman (allegedly) rushing him in violation of a lawful order.
So he fired... and fired... and fired...

And we've got an unarmed man dead with a couple of balsts to the head.


I don't know the facts of the case, by any stretch.
My point in entering the thread was to respond to this...

The witness was a 20-something black lady who was defending the shooting vic. In describing what she saw, she made it clear that Mr. Brown was aggressively attacking the police officer.

Seems this is justifying the killing.

So I'm taking the side of a public defender here.

If the officer's death shots to this dude were justified, I want the case for that to be without question, because he took it upon himself to play judge, jury, and executioner in the blink of an eye.
That's pretty heavy duty.

Prove that the actions were justified, is all I'm asking for.


All of that said, I'm frankly inclined to suspect that Brown was the kind of dude that was going to end up DEAD somehow, before too long, anyway.

[jiminphilly]

In addition I would object in that it omits evidence that the victim was shot at least once when his back was facing the officer as Miss Mitchell and others have testified too, as well as the testimony of Dr. Baden, which stated that Miss Mitchell's testimony was not inconsistent with his findings.

Link?

Are you an idiot or just playing on the net. I just told you one of the witness's name. You have a google on your internet right?

Are you a real lawyer or do you pretend to dress up like a midget attorney and have people laugh at you? Autopsy reports (you know.. admissable evidence) do not match up with what with Mitchell has alleged. The reality is there are just as many reports that contradict statements made by Mitchell and others.

[Left Seater]

Another Black man is shot by Police in North St Louis, although this one appears to be a suicide by cop.

The evidence is quite strong in this case as dude had a knife and had just stolen things for a corner store. Multiple 911 calls reported the man with a knife in the near by intersection.

Yet that didn't stop people from showing up to protest the "killing of another black man."

[Left Seater]

I guess the unabating slaughter of black men by black men doesn't interest MS or Screwy or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or St. Louis residents or Chicago residents ad infinitum.

Exactly. See my post above. Blacks killing blacks doesn't advance the so called black leaders agenda, so they ignore it for the most part.

[Screw_Michigan]

I guess the unabating slaughter of black men by black men doesn't interest MS or Screwy or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or St. Louis residents or Chicago residents ad infinitum.

I understand you have difficulties focusing on many things at once, outside of Bammer football and Muslim jihad, but the rest of civilized society does not.

[Screw_Michigan]

Exactly. See my post above. Blacks killing blacks doesn't advance the so called black leaders agenda, so they ignore it for the most part.

Yeah, police playing judge, jury and executioner with civilians is no big deal. Just more spin, deflecting and handwringing.

[Left Seater]

Exactly. See my post above. Blacks killing blacks doesn't advance the so called black leaders agenda, so they ignore it for the most part.

Yeah, police playing judge, jury and executioner with civilians is no big deal. Just more spin, deflecting and handwringing.

Yeah, so the cops are just supposed to let the guy stab them instead of protecting themselves, ie playing judge, jury and executioner in your mind.

What is it like to live in such a dream land?

[Moving Sale]

Are you a real lawyer or do you pretend to dress up like a midget attorney and have people laugh at you? Autopsy reports (you know.. admissable evidence) do not match up with what with Mitchell has alleged. The reality is there are just as many reports that contradict statements made by Mitchell and others.

What do you do for living? Ditch digger like dims?
Dr. Baden assistant clearly stated that at least one of the shots could have come from behind. Why you do you have to lie?
As far as the reports that contradict Miss Mitchell go ahead and link me up.

[Moving Sale]

At around 3:05, she says it appears that the officer was trying to pull Brown into the car.

You're welcome.

And again, you are saying that means just the opposite right?

[Moving Sale]

Yet that didn't stop people from showing up to protest the "killing of another black man."

And as soon as the cops explained what happened in a straight forward and timely matter the whole thing went away. Imagine that.

[Moving Sale]

I guess the unabating slaughter of black men by black men doesn't interest MS or Screwy or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or St. Louis residents or Chicago residents ad infinitum.

I fear the government more than I fear random violence, so I tend to get more worked up when a cops kills someone than when a random person does the killing. So sue me.

[Moving Sale]

Yet those of us siding with the police are unfeeling, racist bastards.

Too be fair, most of the people siding with the cops in this thread ARE unfeeling racist bastards and not because of what they said in this thread or any other thread about Ferguson.

[mvscal]

I have feelings. They are just reserved for the victims of these rampaging primates.