I believe Wilson started the struggle, just like Zimmerman. And like Zimmerman, the coward Wilson killed Mike Brown because he was angry, not because he was afraid. The prosecutors purposefully tanked the case against him, just like with Zimmerman.

I just cannot believe Wilson's testimony. The scenario presented by Dorian Johnson and one that I have thought about often in the past several months is much more likely than the one presented by Wilson. So disheartening.

Why was Wilson's car in such a weird angle, blocking traffic? Why were there no injuries to the left of Wilson's face? Why were there no signs of the almost fatal punches on Mike Brown's knuckles? Why do the bullet wounds prove Mike had his hands up?

Dorian Johnson's story is true because it supports the physical evidence. Wilson's story is completely fabricated and contradicts 14 witnesses.

Hm, whom should I believe?

didn't appear to be trying to hide anything, unlike wilson whose version was contradictory and unbelievable.

The prosecutor, McCulloch, aided by the two ADA assigned to the Grand Jury acted as the defense team for wilson AND the prosecution team against Michael Brown. It was beyond appalling and their actions from day one should be investigated by the DOJ, imo.

Last edited Sat Nov 29, 2014, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)

He doesn't mention the glaring problem of prosecutors giving an incorrect jury instruction--declared unconstitutional decades earlier--that said cops can shoot fleeing suspected felons. They gave this instruction just before the presentation of Wilson's testimony. Then, after all the testimony, they give a correction to a "part" of that instruction, but do not explain which part nor how it is different now. Lawrence O'Donnell did a great job exposing this outrageous move on the part of the prosecution.

I well imagine that law professors and students in the St. Louis area alone are having fun with this.
Maybe this case will affect those in the law schools today, that the system is broken and they are one of the branches that can fix it.

(Disclaimer to my attitude toward lawyers: my mom worked with Legal Services here in St. Louis for decades, working with the "good guys" who worked very hard for the poor people in the community! It's the ones who got into law for the money that has screwed up the system (along with corrupt cops and judges).)

The whole thing is one big cover up.

Im about 200 and a decent size. A 280 pound guy would not be very easy to take down on my own.

I keep seeing people say that Wilson and Brown are similar in size... they are not. In most cases it would take at least 2 average male cops to subdue someone of Brown's size. Brown was a big guy. Football players on the offensive line are around his size.

actual substance of the post?

He has clarified that further down. I believe the point can be paraphrased as "Prosecutors can decide not to prosecute anyone they want." It implies that "the law" can be flexible for the Prosecutor's "friends" which is ... Not what most of us want.

Brown and Wilson are not equal size. I just think it's disingenuous to suggest that they were. And I've seen that suggestion several times.

As for the rest of the op, I don't disagree with anything else said. I agree that a grand jury is not a trial even though many seem to think it should be conducted like one. Bob McColloch obviously didnt want to pursue the case and hid behind the grand jury. Guess what...that's not illegal. We've had lawyers on this forum say it's not illegal. A grand jury is simply a proceeding where the prosecutor becomes empowered to take a case to trial and represent the state and that criminal charges are either recommended or not. There is no legal mechanism that forces a prosecutor to pursue a criminal trial. A victim of a crime does not have a legal right to a trial.

The only thing prosecutors cannot do in a grand jury is lie in such a way that it leads to an indictment. But even that is difficult to prove. I've never, ever heard of a prosecutor being guilty of misconduct because he presented the evidence in such a way that it leads to a no true bill. Why? Because if the prosecutor doesn't want to pursue a case, he simply doesn't even bother going to a grand jury. He just announces, "im not going to prosecute." And that's the end of the game.

Would you mind clarifying further if you see anything other than size being at play when the antagonists are (moody/grumpy) teenager versus adult police officer?

Honest debate will help us get to the truth. I don't think this poster is trying to show support for Officer Wilson just because they wish to debate a specific point. I think that Wilson is a lying, murdering racist, but think we still should be able to honestly debate specifics. The size difference was probably irrelevant with regard to Wilson's reasoning for the shooting so we should make that case in lieu of trying to argue that the size difference didn't exist.

But the apologists of DU and elsewhere said that weight difference was irrelevant not suggesting you were one of them, just saying how she some people bend over backwards to support murderers

in a neighborhood full of innocent people.

To the lack of correct representation by the prosecution?

Can there be an appeal?

Wilson apparently felt big enough to grab Mike Brown through
the window of the car.

but may not be big enough to hold him.

could have killed Michael Brown.
Guns: The ultimate equalizer.

,

Next they will show us how to patch up a sucking chest wound with rubber bands!

is not nearly the same thing as agreeing or supporting such decisions.

It is a significant distinction that far too many here on DU cannot seem to understand.

McCulloch had no legal obligation to seek charges against Wilson and, absent provable criminal conduct like suborning perjury, could present whatever witnesses and evidence he desired to the grand jury (or not present to the grand jury at all). Victims and their families have no right to a trial. McCulloch also did not have an actual conflict of interest in the case because his father, a police officer, was killed by a black man many years ago, and certainly not because he regularly works with the police. These matters might make his involvement unsavory, but do not legally mandate his recusal.

One can understand the above, and still believe that McCulloch could have easily procured an indictment of Wilson if he so chose, and further believe that an indictment and trial were warranted. It is also not a sign of support of either McCulloch or Wilson to believe that any trial would have been unlikely to result in a conviction. Not only to juries tend to favor police officers, the available testimony was all over the map, and the forensic evidence could easily be interpreted to support Wilson's account. Since he is presumed innocent and any prosecutor must prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, questioning whether a conviction would have been possible is common sense, not a belief in Wilson's innocence or support for McCulloch's.

Recognizing legal and factual realities is not equivalent to supporting any particular outcomes.

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2014112672358760344

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597380/in-the-eyes-of-their-killers-trayvon-martin-and-mike-brown-were-the-same-person/

BY ALICE OLLSTEIN POSTED ON NOVEMBER 26, 2014 AT 1:19 PM

The description is eerily similar to another lethal confrontation with an unarmed black teen in broad daylight: the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Martin, told police that the teen “jumped out from the bushes” and punched him in the face, knocking him down. “I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see. I couldn’t breathe,” he said. “He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode.”

Zimmerman also claimed Martin put his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth and nose and told him, “You’re going to die tonight.”
Both Zimmerman and Darren Wilson told officials that the young men they killed had their hands in their waistbands—suggesting they feared the presence of a weapon when there was none.

Throughout his testimony, Wilson repeatedly referenced Brown’s size, calling him “really big,” “obviously bigger than I was,” and saying he felt “like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan,” though the two men were about the same height.

Later, describing the moment right after he first fired the first bullet, he said Brown “looked up at me and had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon.” In other places, he describes Brown in animalistic terms (“he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound”) and supernatural ones (“it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots”).

Zimmerman offered a vaguer physical description, telling a 911 dispatcher that Martin looked like “real suspicious guy” and saying: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something.”

Both Zimmerman and Wilson are free men today, in part because of these accounts and descriptions provided to law enforcement and the courts. ....more....

and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5873815

---
"..Research shows that hidden biases often lead people to see African Americans as aggressive, superhuman and less vulnerable to pain."