The Goat Pen

As somebody said earlier, the American indian is the one who should be most pissed. Talk about getting fucked, institutionally, as a matter of national policy, and staying fucked, for centuries (and currently), with no remedy in sight...

Your mom is a whore.

michael brown committed a strongarmed robbery 15 minutes before he was shot strike one
michael brown was shot reaching for the cops gun --strike two
michael brown walked away from the cop telling him to stop--- at least 20 feet with a blood trail from his hand wound --strike three
michael brown then turned and charged at least 20 feet being shot at least 4 times during his charge before the fatal head shot less then 10 feet from the cop

your out

as joe scarborough says michael brown is not the right poster child for any injustices done by the po po

the guy from new york is

No, because they didn't shoot that guy. But there's no shortage of poster chirren for police violence.

a Wisconsin man's son was shot on his front porch by police in 2004 and they immediately cleared themselves of wrong doing. He hired a private detective who teamed up with a retired policeman and they found out that what really happened was the cop got his gun hung up and accidently shot his son

He got a 1.75m wrongful death payment, which he then used to fund a study. He found that in the state of Wisconsin, in over a 100 year period, no policeman had ever been found of unjustified shooting of a civilian. There was a case that was settled without charges but he found that statistic astonishing.

So it took him 10 years and he had to get some political endorsements as well as spend all his money but in 2014 he pushed Wisconsin to pass a law that every police shooting will be reviewed by an outside board - a group outside the influence of police or headed up by people directly connected to police like a D.A.


I thought that was pushing the community into a good direction.

The second thing is , I don't think you can fault the grand jury - they only deal with if a law was broken, the law is clearly defined to them and they have little room for variation, unless you have a rogue jury that just ignores the law and wants to go in their own direction

What needs to happen is a policy change that addresses the parameters of a police engagement more clearly. Right now at all level of law enforcement, the lattitude provided to police to use their own judgement is too wide - and narrowing their actions and approach to engaging the community is probably long overdue.

That said, you can't expect wholesale changes to a system where a guy making $45K a year is out there dealing with someone who potentially could take his life - in some cases more than once on a daily basis.

I can't imagine a situation where there will be policy change enacted that gives the benefit of the doubt to the public at large at the chance it would result in a cop dying in the line of duty.

I do believe a federal mandate that all LEO's at every level must wear body cameras while on duty would go a long way to slowing this down. Every instance of police abuse - excessive force to taking the life of a non violent suspect would end up costing the city millions

crashcourse wrote:michael brown committed a strongarmed robbery 15 minutes before he was shot strike one
michael brown was shot reaching for the cops gun --strike two
michael brown walked away from the cop telling him to stop--- at least 20 feet with a blood trail from his hand wound --strike three
michael brown then turned and charged at least 20 feet being shot at least 4 times during his charge before the fatal head shot less then 10 feet from the cop

your out

4 strikes you're out?

michael brown committed a strongarmed robbery 15 minutes before he was shot strike one
michael brown was shot reaching for the cops gun --strike two
michael brown walked away from the cop telling him to stop--- at least 20 feet with a blood trail from his hand wound --strike three
michael brown then turned and charged at least 20 feet being shot at least 4 times during his charge before the fatal head shot less then 10 feet from the cop

Michael Brown was a bully and should have been arrested for stealing $2.50 (of course, execution for that constitutes a violation of substantive due process.

"michael brown was shot reaching for the cops gun" --this allegation was out there, and there was a rumor that his DNA was on the gun, but as a fact, this is unknown. As an allegation, you don't know this is true at all. You can only believe it if you want to believe it.

michael brown walked away from the cop telling him to stop == allege statement by the policeman given weeks later, not on any initial police report (which still has not been released to the public). Again, you can believe this if you want to create the narrative, but you really don't know this.

michael brown then turned and charged at least 20 feet being shot at least 4 times during his charge before the fatal head shot less then 10 feet from the cop == You saw the report that said that the fatal head shot was 10 feet away? I haven't seen such a report. What we have is one witness who said he charged, one who admittedly is problematic and who never was cross-examined. There were others who disagreed with her. You can accept her statement of course, especially if you want to believe the narrative. But a trial with cross-examination would have revealed a lot.

It could be a perfectly appropriate shoot. Then again, we really don't "know" the facts to show it. Michael Brown could be just crazy, telling a policeman to fuck off after you just shoplifted a store, and then charging a man that just shot you after you were running away from the man who just shot you. He shouldn't have been killed, he should have been drafted to teach our soldiers to do what is in our instinct not to do.

So you agree with the grand jury that there were too many unknowns in this case to charge anyone with a crime.

You don't understand the grand jury system. If a prosecutor wanted to get an indictment (say with any other defendent) with the information that we know, he could have gotten one. He presented the information with the intent for them not to indict. Doesn't mean guilt or innocence (despite what the police union said).

In fact, a new prosecutor and new grand jury can still indict. I don't understand the guy's lawyer letting him give that ABC interview. It can be used against him and there is plenty now to cross-examine even if he refuses to testify in a trial. If I were representing the policeman, I would not have come close to letting him give an interview to anyone.

Garner is a better case than Brown

Garner shows that if there is no law broken, then the law (or policy - whatever) should be changed.


The Brown case doesn't help the black community.

I promise, I'm coming soon on this one. I'm probably a few days away...

interesting read

people lied, a city burned


http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/f ... ?hpt=hp_t1

here you go owlman

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... oting.html

I do agree that the D.A. intended to pollute the case so it would lead to a no indictment by the jury.

Whether the case should have ever come up for a grand jury under the current guidelines is another discussion.

I'm all for ringing all that one can get from investing in liquid products holding China exposure in its book, but I've always been skeptical of their economic numbers...

http://online.barrons.com/articles/anne ... 73?tesla=y

How bad can the situation be when the Chinese economy grew by 7.3% in the latest quarter?

People are crazy if they believe any government statistics, which, of course, are largely fabricated. In China, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of physics holds sway, whereby the mere observation of economic numbers changes their behavior. For a time we started to look at numbers like electric-power production and freight traffic to get a line on actual economic growth because no one believed the gross- domestic-product figures. It didn’t take long for Beijing to figure this out and start doctoring those numbers, too.

I put much stock in estimates by various economists, including some at the Conference Board, that actual Chinese GDP is probably a third lower than is officially reported. And as for the recent International Monetary Fund report calling China the world’s biggest economy on a purchasing-power-parity basis, how silly was that? China is a cheap place to live if one is willing to eat rice, cabbage, and pork, but it’s expensive as all get out once you factor in the cost of decent housing, a car, and health care.

I’d be shocked if China is currently growing at a rate above, say, 4%, and any growth at all is coming from financial services, which ultimately depend on sustained growth in the rest of the economy. Think about it: Property sales are in decline, steel production is falling, commercial long-and short-haul vehicle sales are continuing to implode, and much of the growth in GDP is coming from huge rises in inventories across the economy. We track the 400 Chinese consumer companies listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets, and in the third quarter, their gross revenues fell 4% from a year ago. This is hardly a vibrant economy.

looks like Russia is also taking it on the chin with low oil prices.

...and their biggest economic, strategic ally is China right now.

exerpts from witness 63 (obviously a minor sitting in the back seat of a car with her parents in the front)

<i>Aaa we pulled up at a stop sign and we heard two shots and while we were trying to figure out whether they were gun shots or firecrackers we seen, a well I saw the guy, Mike Brown. I seen him take off running and I saw the cop following him and shooting at him and I seen him turn around and stumble or come towards the cop and then I seen him hit the ground. That’s all I saw.

And the officer had the pistol in hand and was chasing him and fired at couple of shots at him while he was running, and I seen Mike turn around like he had given up or something, you know. But he was still moving, he was like coming back at the officer and the officer just kept shootin’ at him.

Yes he actually came back towards the officer. He like got to the corner and turned around. He had been shot a couple of times and




“ so just to narrate, just to narrate for the recording, my hands up your palms are faced forward and your hands are near her shoulder” and you said, “I didn’t see anything in his hands’ and then he said, “so he turned around and he had his hands up near his shoulders” and then what did you see. And then you said “he was coming back at the toward the officer”.

She then described how he dropped his hands with one hand going to hold his chest. She also said that he was either running or stumbling towards the officer. </i>

Most of this has just proved my point. Most were swearing by one side or another and had little facts to decide, just based on their own biases. The evidence is somewhat different and there are multiple ways to interpret it. By the way, just 2 other points: the second autopsy reveals one shot at close range -definitely in the car and through the hand. He was running away and the policeman followed shooting at him. Neither autopsy report talked about the distance of the other shots, but all were from the front.

2nd: Several witnesses on both sides admitted to or were probably lying including the witness that Hannity kept citing was the weakest of all the witnesses and there is a possibility that she wasn't there at all.

This goes to my second point about the grand jury. It is rare for a prosecutor to bring in such unreliable witnesses for a grand jury and not something this particular prosecutor had done before (nor refusing to truly question the alleged defendant).