# Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Discussion Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596 "2014-11-25T15:03:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/201 "2014-11-27T23:31:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > As I explained before, the evidence shows that Wilson didn’t shoot at Brown’s back. [Post #166](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17932311&postcount=166) Nope. You’re still throwing an interpretation in there. You assume that the first series of shots had to have occurred after Brown turned and that Brown could not have turned while that series was being fired. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/202 "2014-11-28T00:02:21Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nope. You’re still throwing an interpretation in there. You assume that the first series of shots had to have occurred after Brown turned and that Brown could not have turned while that series was being fired. The first series of shots was about 2 seconds long. That’s pretty tight timing for your “interpretation”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/203 "2014-11-28T01:14:52Z")
Your point would stand just as well without the “scare quotes”. Is it more important to sneer than to convince? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/204 "2014-11-28T01:49:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Your point would stand just as well without the “scare quotes”. Is it more important to sneer than to convince? It’s in quotes because it requires that Brown, running full out, stops and turns 180 degrees within a second or so. Try that sometime. See if you manage. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/205 "2014-11-28T06:47:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is not accurate. Multiple witnesses provided contradictory testimonies. This was explained in great detail by the prosecuting attorney at the announcement. he summarized all the witnesses and where they stood in relation to forensic evidence. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Beyond that, the whole “turned on him” phrase is a matter of interpretation. It’s not up for interpretation when the forensic evidence is matched to testimony. He did not have his hands up, he was not shot in the back. Any testimony that is contrary to forensic evidence is negated. What’s left is the testimony of Officer Wilson corroborated by other witnesses and forensic evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/206 "2014-11-28T08:25:54Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nope. You’re still throwing an interpretation in there. You assume that the first series of shots had to have occurred after Brown turned and that Brown could not have turned while that series was being fired. This is God-in-the-gaps bullshit, **Tom**. Brown was not shot in the back or the side, and there’s no evidence to suggest Wilson tried. It’s even less plausible because once Brown knew he was being shot at he should have been a harder target, so it’s ridiculous to suggest that Wilson missed every time he tried to shoot Brown in the back, then hit every time once Brown knew what was happening. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/207 "2014-11-28T08:32:49Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Surprised at being shot at, then, followed by staggering in pain when hit after turning. Or, he could have simply decided that he was not going to let Wilson shoot at him and decided to charge him. > > I do not have an opinion regarding what actually happened, but people arguing for a slam dunk version have to choose to ignore or interpret various claims by multiple conflicting witnesses. There was not time between the shots for him to turn round. And yes, I can and will choose to ignore demonstrably false claims by witnesses, and it appears that the Grand Jury also did so. Where a witness statement is contradicted by forensic evidence and recorded audio evidence, there’s no reason to consider it. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/208 "2014-11-28T14:19:49Z")
Lawrence O’Donnell [nails it.](http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025879866) Just wow. The prosecutor essentially acted as defense attorney. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/209 "2014-11-28T14:30:57Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Lawrence O’Donnell [nails it.](http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025879866) Just wow. The prosecutor essentially acted as defense attorney. I watched the first minute of that video, and it’s talking about a law that’s entirely irrelevant to this case. I’m not bothering with the rest, as he’s clearly not arguing in good faith. If you did watch it all, does he mention that the prosecutors also told the Grand Jury that this (irrelevant) law was overturned by the Supreme Court? Because they did. Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the actual evidence, rather than biased sources. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/210 "2014-11-28T14:53:34Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I watched the first minute of that video, and it’s talking about a law that’s entirely irrelevant to this case. I’m not bothering with the rest, as he’s clearly not arguing in good faith. If you did watch it all, does he mention that the prosecutors also told the Grand Jury that this (irrelevant) law was overturned by the Supreme Court? Because they did. > > Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the actual evidence, rather than biased sources. He does mention it, and it is relevant to the case. See, the prosecutors handed out the statute on September 16th. And then on November 21st, more than a month later, they said, “Remember that statute we handed out a month ago? We’ve been doing some research and we’ve discovered that the supreme court overturned one section of that statute 30 years ago.” He spells all of this out in the video, including the utter surprise that two prosecutors arguing a case like this weren’t aware of a major supreme court decision until they were 3 months into the case. If you don’t think there’s something unusual about that, I don’t know what to tell you. I posted that entire bizarre exchange from Nov 21st one or two pages ago, you should go back and read it. These really don’t sound like the best, most prepared lawyers. Now, I will grant that he’s overplaying his hand a bit. There’s no evidence from the transcripts that the grand jury was confused by the statute, or that they even read it. “Odd occurrence during a lengthy trial that the state bar might want to examine later?” Sure, yes, absolutely. “Throw the whole trial out due to prosecutorial misconduct?” I’m not seeing it. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/211 "2014-11-28T14:54:35Z")
Man, I go away for one little holiday and arguments break out. But first, let me address some smaller points. > [@Little\_Pig](#): > > steronz, check out [this link](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whats-next-city-ferguson/) at the 6 minute mark. (Note: It goes into detail for about 7 minutes). Seems no one cross examined the police officer when he gave his testimony, a real sticky point in some minds. Others (legal), please join in on this. There’s some good points made in the clip about grand jury vs. regular jury and who should judge what. Thanks, that was interesting. I didn’t know that the grand jury had been hearing other cases. It’s suggested that because the process was so different on this case that the jury might have figured they were expected to come to a different conclusion. It’s an interesting theory. > [@keeper0](#): > > Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson ran down the road and Officer Wilson pursued on foot while firing his pistol. This has already been address ad naseum, but this is the only thing I’d argue with. More on this later though since it’s sparked a debate. > [@keeper0](#): > > Why did Officer Wilson attempt to detain Mr. Brown? (He says it was due to the reported robbery, but there is no way to independently confirm that.) Wilson did not radio in his reasons for backing up, nor did he say anything about the robbery to Brown and Johnson. However, Johnson testified that Brown was making no effort to hide the Swishers, and we have the radio transcript where dispatch says that Swishers were stolen from the store. I’m willing to concede that Wilson’s account is probably truthful – he saw the cigarillos in his mirror and quickly pegged Brown and Johnson as suspects in the robbery. > [@keeper0](#): > > How quickly and in what manner was Mr. Brown approaching Officer Wilson after turning around? This is, of course, the big question. I don’t think you can take the totality of witness statements and say one way or another. You’d have to take each witness, determine their motivation, level of confusion, where they were in relation to the shooting, etc, and put together your own picture of what happened. I’ll post mine later. > [@keeper0](#): > > Was it necessary/correct procedure/legal for Officer Wilson to fire on the retreating Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson? Could he or should he have acted differently? Putting aside the question of whether or not he fired at Brown while Brown was retreating, I think Wilson acted consistent with his training and someone who moments ago saw fit to open fire in his police car. I think with the perfect clarity of hindsight he probably could have handled the whole encounter better, but I don’t think the grand jury considered that question. They weren’t asked to weigh in on police procedures or race relations, just whether or not a crime was possibly committed. > [@elucidator](#): > > Seems important to me _when_ Wilson began drawing his gun. If Brown was not expecting that the situation has escalated to lethal force, then his grabbing the arm makes sense, in the trying-not-to-get-shot sort of way. What else was he gonna do, try and outrun the bullet? Gun goes off, Brown forgets what a fearless black demon he is, and panics. Mmm, I don’t think it matters. Wilson was conducting a lawful arrest. He has a right to draw his weapon to affect that arrest, within his own judgement. If Brown were interested in his own safety he could and should have become a docile kitten at that point – right hand limp, left hand up, “Ok ok, I surrender.” I don’t know of any reason why we’d allow criminals being arrested the right to self defense against the threat of deadly force from an officer. It’s completely normal for officers to aim their weapons at suspects, with an implied threat of “If you do anything I find threatening I’m going to kill you.” We expect that this will make criminals comply with the officer and allow themselves to be arrested. Which is what Brown should have done. More on this later. > [@Grumman](#): > > I assume this is your answer - he didn’t mention what he and Brown were doing because he and Brown were smoking pot. Correct. The grand jury was very interested in finding out just how high Mike Brown was. Of course, the toxicologist and forensic pathologists would not answer, because all they can do is measure chemicals, and pot affects everyone differently. And of course, there was testimony to the effect of “pot doesn’t make people angry and aggressive,” so I’m not sure why they were so interested in finding out how high he was. I think they were just trying to make sense of the whole thing, and they were grabbing at anything. > [@aceplace57](#): > > I’m not sure if this so called defense expert got before the grand jury or not. He’s worked with Baden on the Brown case and been on the news a lot. Whatever this so called expert did tainted Baden’s report. > > CNN has caught this guy in one lie after another. > [http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/health/ferguson-michael-brown-pathologist-credentials/index.html?hpt=hp\_t3](http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/health/ferguson-michael-brown-pathologist-credentials/index.html?hpt=hp_t3) I don’t know if he did either, since the names were redacted. I will say that there were three autopsies, and all three forensic pathologists testified. They all largely agreed. There wasn’t really room for hanky panky here. > [@Magiver](#): > > The case as it exists never should have gone to a Grand Jury. It was easy to establish by witness accounts and forensic evidence that Brown attacked Wilson in his car and turned on him during the chase. There was never any legal contention about what took place. This was nothing but a dog and pony show for public consumption and from that standpoint it was handled poorly. They should have revealed the known information up front and dispensed with the Grand Jury. Your assessment is 100% bogus. I don’t know that I really need to expound upon that, but I’ll just say that the grand jury was a lot more interested in the details and the legal consequences of those details than you are. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/212 "2014-11-28T15:04:44Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No he couldn’t have. Since all 6 hits were in his front, not one in the back. All three pathologists testified that one of the arm shots could have come from anywhere, since the arm is so mobile. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Nope. You’re still throwing an interpretation in there. You assume that the first series of shots had to have occurred after Brown turned and that Brown could not have turned while that series was being fired. And **tomndebb** is technically correct here. To say with certainty that Wilson did not fire at a fleeing Brown because of the physical evidence is to add some interpretation into the mix. > [@Terr](#): > > It’s in quotes because it requires that Brown, running full out, stops and turns 180 degrees within a second or so. Try that sometime. See if you manage. Running full out? He couldn’t have already been slowing, nearly at a stop, but still facing away from Wilson? See what I’m saying about adding interpretation into the mix? Now, that said, in my personal theory of what exactly happened on that day I DO agree with **Terr** ’s assessment. I don’t think the timing of the shots and the distance covered leaves much room for the "shot (at) from behind theory. I think witnesses who saw Wilson shoot at Brown from behind were likely mistaken by the timing, for reasons I’ll expand upon in another post. I don’t think the grand jury considered it a likely scenario, although that’s more of a hunch than anything I can point to in the transcripts. That said, I don’t have the same confidence as **Terr** that it couldn’t have happened because the physical evidence to contradict it completely just isn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/213 "2014-11-28T15:28:37Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Running full out? He couldn’t have already been slowing, nearly at a stop, but still facing away from Wilson? See what I’m saying about adding interpretation into the mix? The “been slowing, nearly at stop” doesn’t fit with the “he stopped and turned around because he was shot [at]” theory. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/214 "2014-11-28T15:43:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The “been slowing, nearly at stop” doesn’t fit with the “he stopped and turned around because he was shot [at]” theory. How so? Nearly at a stop is not stopped. He could have been slowing for some other reason. There’s no physical evidence that he was running flat out, and yet you just toss that out there without expecting to be called on it. There’s no footprints or video. For all the physical evidence we have, he could have been skipping while doing jazz hands. For someone who’s so big on the physical evidence you’re being awfully stubborn on this point. I’ve already agreed with you that he most likely turned before the first volley, I’m just saying that the physical evidence doesn’t make this a certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/215 "2014-11-28T15:46:20Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > There’s no physical evidence that he was running flat out No, he could have teleported the 175+ feet away from the car. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/216 "2014-11-28T15:47:47Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, he could have teleported the 175+ feet away from the car. You can’t skip 175 feet? (eta: or walk fast, or jog, or run at any pace other than flat out. There’s no other way to cover that distance unless you’re flat out, apparently. You’re being obtuse.) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/217 "2014-11-28T16:01:38Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > You can’t skip 175 feet? Sure. He could also have been running backwards - ah yes, that’s the ticket. The evidence all fits. That’s why he was shot in front. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/218 "2014-11-28T16:07:09Z")
He might have slowed down as a consequence of being a 300 lb man. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/219 "2014-11-28T16:16:38Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Your assessment is 100% bogus. I don’t know that I really need to expound upon that, but I’ll just say that the grand jury was a lot more interested in the details and the legal consequences of those details than you are. Jury curiosity is irrelevant. They’re not lawyers. If I was on the jury the prosecutor would have rue’d the day he picked me because I’d annoy the fuck out of him with requests. I’ve had run-ins with bad cops and there is nothing I would enjoy better than taking them down. But we’re discussing this after all that has taken place. The relevant question is whether Brown posed a threat to the officer. Given the attack in the car Brown showed his strength and intent. Unless there is evidence that contradicts the forensic evidence and the officer’s account then the case was DOA. There are simply too many court cases establishing the use of force in such instances. If he was shot from the back then that’s relevant. If he WASN’T shot in the car that would be relevant. You can’t win a case on “isn’t it curious” conspiracy theory. if you come with evidence that you think the jury overlooked then by all means toss it on the table. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/220 "2014-11-28T16:28:26Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > You can’t skip 175 feet? > > (eta: or walk fast, or jog, or run at any pace other than flat out. There’s no other way to cover that distance unless you’re flat out, apparently. You’re being obtuse.) What is your legal point of contention with the distance of the chase? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596.md?page=12)