# Ferguson, MO **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 12, 2014, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354 "2014-08-12T04:51:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 128
**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:** [October 22, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2541 "2014-10-22T20:19:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I have done a little Googling, but I can’t tell. > > Brown was shot six times - twice inside the car, and four times out. If WIlson’s gun was a six-shooter, there could not have been any other shots that missed, but I cann’t determine if it was. Anybody know? > > Regards, > Shodan I can’t find it either. If he’s using a revolver in 2014, that puts him in some kind of [tiny minority of police officers](http://www.officer.com/blog/10755085/the-revolver-wont-die), though. (Yes, totally unscientific poll, but come on, who the hell carries a 6 shooter anymore?) ---
**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:** [October 22, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2542 "2014-10-22T20:20:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > My cite directly shows that your statement was wrong. That new information does, in fact, contradict the preferred narrative of one side. Denying that is just stupid. The person you cited said he didn’t have his hands up. I’m not sure where they’re getting that though – it’s not in the autopsy report, which is where you should be looking for contradictions if you parse my words literally. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2543 "2014-10-22T20:29:53Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Correct. And what is “probable cause”? Simply, a reasonable amount of suspicion. So if there’s a question that it’s possible someone did something wrong, as you stated in your post, that is a reasonable amount of suspicion. Or else there wouldn’t be a question of is it possible that particular someone did something wrong. “Probable cause” means “more likely than not”. It does not mean “reasonable amount of suspicion”. That said, I don’t know that the standard for a GJ indictment is probable cause. However, in general, the government is not supposed to prosecute people based on nothing more than reasonable suspicion. Fortunately. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2544 "2014-10-22T20:31:42Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > The person you cited said he didn’t have his hands up. I’m not sure where they’re getting that though – it’s not in the autopsy report, which is where you should be looking for contradictions if you parse my words literally. He was shot in the back of the arm, which, barring advances in magic bullet technology, means his palms were facing inward, not towards the officer. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2545 "2014-10-22T20:32:09Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > No, _that’s_ a spin. To say the track of ONE bullet through Brown’s arm shows he couldn’t have been surrendering AT ALL is spin. Pointing that out is not. ---
**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:** [October 22, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2546 "2014-10-22T20:34:59Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > He was shot in the back of the arm, which, barring advances in magic bullet technology, means his palms were facing inward, not towards the officer. OK, so when that one bullet hit him, his hands weren’t up. How does that contradict the statement, “Michael Brown was shot with his hands up,” considering he was shot 6 times? That one bullet wound can’t possible tell us that much about the situation. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2547 "2014-10-22T20:43:42Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > “Probable cause” means “more likely than not”. It does not mean “reasonable amount of suspicion”. That’s just wrong. > [@](#): > > Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit. [Cite](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause) But whatever definition you want to use, the point is “probably cause” is an extremely low standard. Which is why most Grand Jury inquiries looking for an indictment for a defendant usually issues one. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2548 "2014-10-22T20:58:00Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > OK, so when that one bullet hit him, his hands weren’t up. How does that contradict the statement, “Michael Brown was shot with his hands up,” considering he was shot 6 times? That one bullet wound can’t possible tell us that much about the situation. At least two of the shots that hit him happened when his hands weren’t up in surrender. And since I assume the shots were fired in rapid succession, it is somewhat less likely that Johnson meant Brown either surrendered after he was shot in the arm and hand, or surrendered, got shot, stopped surrendering, got shot some more, and then fell over and got shot in the head. Or else Wilson is telling the truth, and Brown didn’t get shot in surrender because he didn’t surrender, just like we know Brown didn’t get shot in the back because none of the GSWs were in the back. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2549 "2014-10-22T21:03:46Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > That’s just wrong. > > But whatever definition you want to use, the point is “probably cause” is an extremely low standard. Which is why most Grand Jury inquiries looking for an indictment for a defendant usually issues one. Your cite is consistent with what I wrote and is inconsistent with your position. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2550 "2014-10-22T21:06:38Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > But whatever definition you want to use, the point is “probably cause” is an extremely low standard. Which is why most Grand Jury inquiries looking for an indictment for a defendant usually issues one. It’s really not low. The members of the grand jury have to believe that Wilson committed the crime in order to indict him. They don’t have to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt, but they still have to believe it. Just believing that it’s possible isn’t good enough. Reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief would be two lower standards. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2551 "2014-10-22T21:11:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your cite is consistent with what I wrote and is inconsistent with your position. If you say so. The point was the “more likely than not” definition is wrong. I think you were thinking of “preponderance of evidence” not “probably cause”. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2552 "2014-10-22T21:16:08Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > It’s really not low. The members of the grand jury have to believe that Wilson committed the crime in order to indict him. They don’t have to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt, but they still have to believe it. Just believing that it’s possible isn’t good enough. Reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief would be two lower standards. A Grand Jury does NOT have to believe a defendant is guilty. They only have to believe there’s enough evidence to hold him/her over for trial. In fact, believing “it’s possible” is not only enough, but that’s really all that’s required of them. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2553 "2014-10-22T21:19:26Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > If you say so. The point was the “more likely than not” definition is wrong. I think you were thinking of “preponderance of evidence” not “probably cause”. You are right that I was confused with “preponderance of evidence”. My apologies. That said, it does seem pretty clear that it’s a higher standard than “reasonable suspicion”. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2554 "2014-10-22T21:31:20Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > A Grand Jury does NOT have to believe a defendant is guilty. They only have to believe there’s enough evidence to hold him/her over for trial. In fact, believing “it’s possible” is not only enough, but that’s really all that’s required of them. How do you reach this conclusion given your definition of probable cause: “Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an **accused person has committed a crime** ”? (bolding mine) Or are you saying that grand juries do not use the probable cause standard? ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2555 "2014-10-22T22:07:50Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > How do you reach this conclusion given your definition of probable cause: “Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an **accused person has committed a crime** ”? (bolding mine) Or are you saying that grand juries do not use the probable cause standard? They don’t have to believe the defendant is guilty. They only have to believe there’s probable cause to believe the defendant is guilty. ---
**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:** [October 23, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2556 "2014-10-23T18:33:06Z")
I think it’s worth reminding everything that grand juries aren’t like normal trials. The defense doesn’t present any evidence, and the rules of evidence for the prosecutor are more lax than at a normal trial. The state could, in theory present the following pieces of evidence, that: a) Michael Brown was shot to death, with b) Officer Wilson’s service weapon, and c) Eye witnesses say he had his hands up in surrender That’s it. Totally fine. The prosecution is under no obligation to present Darren Wilson’s side of the story, to argue that it was self defense, or to call Darren Wilson as a witness. So whatever standard of proof the grand jury is held to is somewhat irrelevant. If you were sitting on this grand jury and you heard 7 or 8 witnesses all tell basically the same story, that Michael Brown turned, surrendered, and was gunned down, would you not vote for a trial? I believe the legal standard is actually “preponderance of evidence,” and in the absence of any conflicting story, are you going to disregard all of that testimony? Of course, that’s if the prosecutor _wants_ a trial. Apparently Darren Wilson did testify, so who knows what’s going to come out of this, but quibbling over the legal standard is somewhat beside the point here. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2557 "2014-10-23T20:25:54Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I think it’s worth reminding everything that grand juries aren’t like normal trials. The defense doesn’t present any evidence, and the rules of evidence for the prosecutor are more lax than at a normal trial. The state could, in theory present the following pieces of evidence, that: > > a) Michael Brown was shot to death, with > b) Officer Wilson’s service weapon, and > c) Eye witnesses say he had his hands up in surrender > > That’s it. Totally fine. The prosecution is under no obligation to present Darren Wilson’s side of the story, to argue that it was self defense, or to call Darren Wilson as a witness. So whatever standard of proof the grand jury is held to is somewhat irrelevant. If you were sitting on this grand jury and you heard 7 or 8 witnesses all tell basically the same story, that Michael Brown turned, surrendered, and was gunned down, would you not vote for a trial? I believe the legal standard is actually “preponderance of evidence,” and in the absence of any conflicting story, are you going to disregard all of that testimony? If you are referring to the “7 or 8 eye witnesses” I cited, they agree with Wilson’s version of events, not Brown’s. If not, where are you getting this number from? ---
**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:** [October 23, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2558 "2014-10-23T20:51:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you are referring to the “7 or 8 eye witnesses” I cited, they agree with Wilson’s version of events, not Brown’s. If not, where are you getting this number from? Let’s see, there’s the two teenage girls interviewed in [this video](http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-dashcams/). There’s Dorian Johnson. There’s the [two white construction workers](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/workers-who-were-witnesses-provide-new-perspective-on-michael-brown/article_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html) who were interviewed. From that same article, we have: > [@](#): > > Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. “Not quickly,” Walker said. “He did not rush the officer.” And also > [@](#): > > Piaget Crenshaw, who lives in the Canfield apartments, and Tiffany Mitchell, her boss, were in different places in the complex. Crenshaw told CNN that Brown didn’t move toward Wilson. In several statements to reporters, neither has mentioned Brown moving toward Wilson. So that’s 8 right there, by name except for the two construction workers. On the other hand, your cite was an unnamed source from the Washington Post, who said 7 or 8 witnesses corroborated Wilson’s story, but didn’t name them or describe in what manner their testimony corroborated it. Even if you believe your cite and accept that there are 7 or 8 people who could contradict the 8 people I just mentioned, my point is simply that the prosecutor is under no obligation to call them in any sort of trial, and in a grand jury the defense isn’t even present. If the prosecutor wanted 8 witnesses to testify that Brown was surrendering, I just named them. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2559 "2014-10-23T21:05:22Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Let’s see, there’s the two teenage girls interviewed in [this video](http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-dashcams/). There’s Dorian Johnson. There’s the [two white construction workers](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/workers-who-were-witnesses-provide-new-perspective-on-michael-brown/article_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html) who were interviewed. From that same article, we have: > > And also > > So that’s 8 right there, by name except for the two construction workers. > > On the other hand, your cite was an unnamed source from the Washington Post, who said 7 or 8 witnesses corroborated Wilson’s story, but didn’t name them or describe in what manner their testimony corroborated it. > > Even if you believe your cite and accept that there are 7 or 8 people who could contradict the 8 people I just mentioned, my point is simply that the prosecutor is under no obligation to call them in any sort of trial, and in a grand jury the defense isn’t even present. If the prosecutor wanted 8 witnesses to testify that Brown was surrendering, I just named them. Okay. That’s why I asked. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/2560 "2014-10-23T21:24:22Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > There’s Dorian Johnson. The liar who said Brown was shot in the back? You’re taking his word? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=127) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=129)