# 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:** 154
**Author:** ![Fallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@Fallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fallen)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3061 "2014-11-25T19:43:09Z")
It’s best to avoid declaring that what was presented was “all evidence available” or “all available evidence.” That, as a practical matter, did not occur and, at any rate, even if that were true (it isn’t), it isn’t true that a prosecutor’s obligation as an advocate for the state is to just dump X evidence on the grand jury, stand back and say " 'kay … let us know whether and with what you all wanna charge him." ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3062 "2014-11-25T19:47:49Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > All three options would be on solid ground. Unless someone does not happen to like one of the options. > > The grand jury heard all of the evidence available. After hearing all of the evidence available, the grand jury didn’t find a reason to indict. We don’t even know that _most_ of the grand jury thought that way. Your phrasing implies a unity of opinion on the part of the grand jury, a unity that is speculative. It is entirely possible that eight of the twelve voted to indict, but that is not the necessary nine. It is also possible that all of the grand jury members were of one mind, but to imply that is fudging the facts. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3063 "2014-11-25T19:50:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Can you cite this? I had no idea forensics could establish such a thing. > > Further, by “couple of seconds” do you mean exactly 2? Normal walking speed for a healthy adult is about 5 or 6 feet per second, which (if he wasn’t charging) would make it 4 or 5 seconds for 25 feet. Sprinting speed is 3 to 4 times that, so 15-25 feet per second, which would put a time for “charging” 25 feet at about 1 or 1.5 seconds. I haven’t found where in the evidence dump it states that Brown moved towards Wilson but, generally-speaking, Brown’s blood trail would have been from the police vehicle to a point “A” some distance away. If Brown’s blood trail then travels from point “A” to point “B”, a location closer to Wilson, then Brown would have been advancing towards/charging/walking towards Wilson. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3064 "2014-11-25T19:54:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Can you cite this? I had no idea forensics could establish such a thing. In the evidence dump, there is a map of the area with markings where the body was and where various things were found. Brown’s blood was found 25 feet further away from Wilson than where the body was. That establishes, pretty definitively, that Brown moved at least 25 feet toward Wilson. As for the timing - AFAIR, the time (on the audio recorded) from the first set of shots that supposedly, according to all witnesses, made Brown turn around, to the last set of shots that presumably dropped Brown to the ground, was 2 seconds or so. On edit: just listened to it again. Yes - about 2 seconds. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3065 "2014-11-25T19:54:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > We don’t even know that _most_ of the grand jury thought that way. Your phrasing implies a unity of opinion on the part of the grand jury, a unity that is speculative. It is entirely possible that eight of the twelve voted to indict, but that is not the necessary nine. > > It is also possible that all of the grand jury members were of one mind, but to imply that is fudging the facts. The grand jury did not find sufficient reason to hold Wilson for trial. The grand jury consisted of 12 grand jurors but the grand jury didn’t buy what CNN and MSNBC/DNC were trying to sell to the public. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3066 "2014-11-25T19:57:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I haven’t found where in the evidence dump it states that Brown moved towards Wilson but, generally-speaking, Brown’s blood trail would have been from the police vehicle to a point “A” some distance away. If Brown’s blood trail then travels from point “A” to point “B”, a location closer to Wilson, then Brown would have been advancing towards/charging/walking towards Wilson. This seems to be consistent with my post – most of the witnesses agree that at the end, Brown moved towards Wilson. The disagreement was the nature of the movement – a “charge” or something else (like advancing to surrender, according to some). ---
**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:** [November 25, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3067 "2014-11-25T20:00:09Z")
> [@Fallen](#): > > Fother, it may surprise you to learn: (a) plenty of lawyers \*including \*judges don’t know the law or care to know it (many with a point of view “that’s why they made appellate courts”); (b) judges available to be asked or answer a survey, etc. don’t necessarily represent a good sampling of those who’d be involved with making probable cause determinations [1]; (c) again, plenty of judges don’t know the law but believe they do (and some do, but simply do not care and one is required to force them to follow it). Well we’re discussing how the law is administered as a practical matter, not how it is in theory. And then there’s also - in that same source - a guy named Christopher Slobogin (presumably [this guy](http://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/christopher-slobogin)) writing in a published legal work that probable cause is “a level of certainty akin to the civil preponderance standard”, which is remarkably similar to what I wrote (and which RP declared to be “mistaken”). But let’s grant that all these people can be mistaken. (There are apparently differing opinions about it anyway.) The thing is that Richard Parker can also be mistaken. Richard Parker saying that I’m wrong is a lawyer arguing about a legal matter with a layman and he’s entitled to the presumption that he’s right about it. But once you start relying on the assumption that all these judges and other published works are all mistaken, then that’s something else. Richard Parker is not 9 members of the SC, he’s just one lawyer out there, and he doesn’t get to decree that anyone in the world who disagrees with him is wrong. So his arrogance on the subject was misplaced - and unfortunate too, because it probably makes it harder for him to back off it. But more than that, what’s significant here is that even among those who say it’s not 50%, many seem to say it’s more like 40% or so (appreciating that it’s not an exact number of any sort). Which is not all that different from 50% for purposes of this specific discussion. Again, the core issue here is the insistance by RP that as long as there exist credible witnesses whose testimony supports guilt, there exists probable cause. Even if the standard is something like 40% that is still incorrect. > [@Bricker](#): > > Sorry. **Richard Parker** is correct. Probable cause exists when the totality of facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed. This is not quantifiable as a percentage, but it is absolutely less than a preponderance of the evidence. It is a low standard. WADR, this seems like double-talk to me. To me - and I believe this is true of English speakers in general - if you “believe that an offense has been committed”, then you believe that it’s more likely than not that an offense has been committed. If you believe that it’s more likely than not that an offense has not been committed, then you don’t “believe that an offense has been committed”. In any event, how about you address the underlying question. Suppose there are some number of witnesses who credible testimony supports guilt, does this imply that there must be probable cause? Or could the GJ decide that based on other witnesses and the totality of the evidence the suspicion does not meet the PC standard? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3068 "2014-11-25T20:01:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I didn’t cite to that guy specifically, and you’re presumably singling him out because he appears to be an outlier. The average in the study you cited was 31%. Not that it matters, because a judicial survey–while interesting for many purposes–is a terrible method for determining what the law requires and what the law allows. Instead, we should go by what the cases have decided. As for the rest, you continue to mischaracterize my claims. I am not claiming that the existence of non-discredited witnesses categorically requires as a matter of law the finding of probable cause. Since I have gone so far as to explicitly disavow such a claim, I can only conclude that you’re not trying very hard to understand my actual position here. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3069 "2014-11-25T20:07:50Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In the evidence dump, there is a map of the area with markings where the body was and where various things were found. Brown’s blood was found 25 feet further away from Wilson than where the body was. That establishes, pretty definitively, that Brown moved at least 25 feet toward Wilson. As for the timing - AFAIR, the time (on the audio recorded) from the first set of shots that supposedly, according to all witnesses, made Brown turn around, to the last set of shots that presumably dropped Brown to the ground, was 2 seconds or so. On edit: just listened to it again. Yes - about 2 seconds. I don’t doubt the 25 feet – as I said, that is consistent with just about all the witness testimony. As to the seconds between shots, could you link to the audio? ---
**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:** [November 25, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3070 "2014-11-25T20:11:03Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The average in the study you cited was 31%. You’re wrong. 31% was the average number they gave for reasonable suspicion (footnote #35). The average in the study for probable cause - per footnote #59 - was 44.52%. These are different standards, as you know. > [@](#): > > Not that it matters, because a judicial survey–while interesting for many purposes–is a terrible method for determining what the law requires and what the law allows. Instead, we should go by what the cases have decided. You got something there, by all means whip it out. So far you’ve sufficed with your own declarations. Until then, it’s reasonable to assume that judges would decide in actual cases in accordance with their general opinions > [@](#): > > As for the rest, you continue to mischaracterize my claims. I am not claiming that the existence of non-discredited witnesses categorically requires as a matter of law the finding of probable cause. Since I have gone so far as to explicitly disavow such a claim, I can only conclude that you’re not trying very hard to understand my actual position here. Sorry, I’m doing my best. I quoted your own words. And what I wrote in response was: “_If the GJ thought it was more likely than not that no crime was committed, then it’s their job to decline to indict. The same goes for the prosecutor. It makes no difference if there were also some credible witnesses whose testimony supported guilt. What counts is the overall evidence_”. You quoted this and claimed it was “factually incorrect”. Based on everything I’ve seen, what I wrote there was factually correct, and your assertion to the contrary was itself incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3071 "2014-11-25T20:13:19Z")
You are correct that I misread that footnote. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I quoted your own words. Since we cannot even agree on the meaning of “quote,” I think we’re done here. ---
**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 25, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3072 "2014-11-25T20:13:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In the evidence dump, there is a map of the area with markings where the body was and where various things were found. Brown’s blood was found 25 feet further away from Wilson than where the body was. That establishes, pretty definitively, that Brown moved at least 25 feet toward Wilson. As for the timing - AFAIR, the time (on the audio recorded) from the first set of shots that supposedly, according to all witnesses, made Brown turn around, to the last set of shots that presumably dropped Brown to the ground, was 2 seconds or so. On edit: just listened to it again. Yes - about 2 seconds. Which document was the map in? I haven’t found it yet. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3073 "2014-11-25T20:24:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t doubt the 25 feet – as I said, that is consistent with just about all the witness testimony. As to the seconds between shots, could you link to the audio? Actually, no, it is not consistent with “just about all the witness testimony”. Quite a few of them are adamant that Brown didn’t move toward Wilson. And quite a few claim some kind of “stumble” or “falling” toward Wilson - you don’t “stumble” or “fall” for 25 feet. As for the link - here is one: [http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/](http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3074 "2014-11-25T20:25:20Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Which document was the map in? I haven’t found it yet. It is a picture of the map itself, not in any document, and I saw it on one of the evidence web sites (as well as on CNN when they were discussing it). On that site, it was together with the other crime scene photos. Can’t find it at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3075 "2014-11-25T20:32:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Actually, no, it is not consistent with “just about all the witness testimony”. Quite a few of them are adamant that Brown didn’t move toward Wilson. And quite a few claim some kind of “stumble” or “falling” toward Wilson - you don’t “stumble” or “fall” for 25 feet. You can certainly stumble for 25 feet – that’s only about 8 steps, or less for a tall man. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3076 "2014-11-25T20:33:54Z")
How many witnesses who were found to be either lying or mistaken (as proven by forensics) were “pro-Brown”. How many were “pro-Wilson?” Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3077 "2014-11-25T20:36:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > As for the link - here is one: [http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/](http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/) I counted between 3 and 4 seconds between the two groups of gunshots. ---
**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 25, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3078 "2014-11-25T20:39:51Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It is a picture of the map itself, not in any document, and I saw it on one of the evidence web sites (as well as on CNN when they were discussing it). On that site, it was together with the other crime scene photos. Can’t find it at the moment. OK, I found it. 21 feet 8 inches for the furthest blood splatter to his right foot according to the crime scene measurements. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3079 "2014-11-25T20:41:02Z")
If it’s 21 feet, and 3-4 seconds, that’s much closer to walking (or stumbling) speed than it is to “charging” speed. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3080 "2014-11-25T20:41:19Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > OK, I found it. 21 feet 8 inches for the furthest blood splatter to his right foot according to the crime scene measurements. So how is that consistent with a charge? Seems like he walked quickly towards him then, at best (or worst). That’s not a charge. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=153) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=155)