# 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:** 161
**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 26, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3201 "2014-11-26T17:08:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does any physical evidence contradict any of Wilson’s testimony? I’m still working through the grand jury transcripts, but not really, just eyewitness testimony. Given the nature of the differences between the witnesses and Wilson’s own account, I can’t think of any physical evidence that would contradict his testimony. There’s quite a few eyewitnesses who say that Mike Brown was surrendering whose testimony also isn’t contradicted by the physical evidence, though. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3202 "2014-11-26T17:12:24Z")
Didn’t the prosecutor say that Officer Wilson’s testimony wasn’t that important when looking at whether or not to indict, since obviously it would be biased testimony in his own favor, and that they only looked at it with how it related to the factual evidence of the case? All of these people going on and on over his testimony don’t seem to get that it wasn’t that important in the grand scheme of him avoiding a trial. It was the physical evidence and the testimony of MANY CREDIBLE WITNESSES that led to him avoiding charges. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3203 "2014-11-26T17:13:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Would Brown need to be an innocent lamb gamboling amongst the daffodils to qualify for his license to continue breathing? No. Is there ever a case where you would consider a shooting by a police officer justified? Do think the evidence suggests Brown _was_ a young man of great character? How about step-father? ---
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3204 "2014-11-26T17:16:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does any physical evidence contradict any of Wilson’s testimony? This is a decent write up, but there is a shit-ton of evidence that was entered into the grand jury. > **[Grand jury decline to charge Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/ferguson-police-darren-wilson-michael-brown-no-charges)** > > Grand jury finds that Darren Wilson, 28, did not break the law when he shot Brown dead after an altercation in August ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3205 "2014-11-26T17:25:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What? I don’t think McCulloch handled the case inappropriately, but for those who do that sort of thing is certainly relevant. McCulloch did not personally present the case to the grand jury but he supervises those who did and almost certainly was personally involved in selecting the witnesses and documentary evidence. If he wanted to present a biased view, the fact that his underlings were doing the presentation is hardly a bar. Since McCulloch stated quite plainly that the GJ was going to be presented all evidence in the case - maybe you can point out some omissions? Also my response was to **elucidator** ’s remarks accusing McCulloch of “shepherding the grand jury”: "Well, it does make an interesting narrative, one that apparently fascinated the prosecutor. He simply couldn’t shut up until he had made mention of every single one. What value does he see in that, I have to wonder. Debunked evidence is of no value, what is to be gained by bringing it up? Other than to shepherd the grand jury into thinking that all witnesses are bogus, to set the stage for a sympathetic portrayal of a persecuted cop, surrounded by lying…people." ---
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3206 "2014-11-26T17:29:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is the point of dispute between various witnesses and Wilson’s account, as far as I can tell. At some point Brown probably turned, and probably moved back towards Wilson in some fashion. But according to some of the witnesses, he was trying to surrender – arms high, not moving fast. According to Wilson, he turned to charge. In my view, if someone is trying to surrender, shooting them is not self defense. If someone is turning and moving towards him in a maybe/maybe not surrender attempt, then it becomes much more hazy as to what’s appropriate. But these are reasonable points of disagreement by the protesters – **that shooting someone who might be surrendering, even if they’re otherwise acting erratically, perhaps should not be lawful**. Bolding mine. That word MIGHT is a huge disclaimer. In a hostile situation either it is, or it isn’t. To Wilson’s mind Brown was not surrendering. Fair enough. I thought you were going somewhere else. The physical evidence doesn’t contradict the testimony of Wilson, however some of the evidence doesn’t necessarily contradict what you’re surmising here, either. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3207 "2014-11-26T17:38:22Z")
> [@](#): > > …Since McCulloch stated quite plainly that the GJ was going to be presented all evidence in the case - maybe you can point out some omissions?.. Why? Because I suspect that it was a tactical maneuver. Debunked evidence is obviously of no value, so why bring up every single example? Because it establishes a narrative of false accusations and unreliable witnesses. Such that if one of the witnesses was reliable and telling the truth, it is more likely that the witness will be disregarded. So, omission would not be necessary, the jury would be inclined to regard the “good” witness as just another “bad” witness. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3208 "2014-11-26T17:43:32Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > How did he prevent a bloody beating by shooting at someone who was running away? > > … Considering the autopsy reports proved that to be false, I think your point is moot. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3209 "2014-11-26T17:48:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Why? Because I suspect that it was a tactical maneuver. Debunked evidence is obviously of no value, so why bring up every single example? Lots of anti-Wilson people cling tenaciously to what you call “debunked evidence”. It was important to actually debunk it. If it was not presented, you’d be the first crying about selective presentation of evidence and hiding contrarian witnesses. > [@](#): > > Because it establishes a narrative of false accusations and unreliable witnesses. Such that if one of the witnesses was reliable and telling the truth, it is more likely that the witness will be disregarded. So, omission would not be necessary, the jury would be inclined to regard the “good” witness as just another “bad” witness. Why? A “good” witness’s testimony is not “false” or “unreliable” - why would it be disregarded? I mean, obviously the jury found some witnesses’ testimony reliable. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3210 "2014-11-26T18:05:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Why? A “good” witness’s testimony is not “false” or “unreliable” - why would it be disregarded? I mean, obviously the jury found some witnesses’ testimony reliable. Actually, on a general level, there’s been a lot of public discussion lately about eyewitness testimony and its unreliablility. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3211 "2014-11-26T18:06:40Z")
> [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](#): > > Why wasn’t Al Sharpton, et al down here before, attempting to peacefully get the laws and/or attitudes changed long before this, and expose the biases instead of charging in with a torch ready to light the tinderbox? There’s less work in torches and more money in tinderboxes. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3212 "2014-11-26T18:20:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Why? Because I suspect that it was a tactical maneuver. Debunked evidence is obviously of no value, so why bring up every single example? > > Because it establishes a narrative of false accusations and unreliable witnesses. Such that if one of the witnesses was reliable and telling the truth, it is more likely that the witness will be disregarded. So, omission would not be necessary, the jury would be inclined to regard the “good” witness as just another “bad” witness. ::blinks:: And if he doesn’t present all the witnesses, then your post says: Notice how he carefully excluded certain witnesses, the ones he says had “unreliable” testimony. I suspect “unreliable” is a synonym for “damaging.” **elucidator** ’s ideal grand jury: Members of the grand jury, this is Officer Darren Wilson. He killed an unarmed black person. The bailiff may fire when ready. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3213 "2014-11-26T18:35:22Z")
It may be a personal failing, but I enjoy many “Darwin Award Winner” stories. When you’ve already assaulted the cop, told the cop “you’re too big a pussy to actually shoot me”, then actually _been shot_ by the cop, and _then continue_ to advance upon him after he has yelled at you to “Stop!” repeatedly (I think this is pretty well established), well…it’s not that I find much entertainment value in this story, but… ---
**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 26, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3214 "2014-11-26T18:39:56Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > It may be a personal failing, but I enjoy many “Darwin Award Winner” stories. > When you’ve already assaulted the cop, told the cop “you’re too big a pussy to actually shoot me”, then actually _been shot_ by the cop, and _then continue_ to advance upon him after he has yelled at you to “Stop!” repeatedly (I think this is pretty well established), well…it’s not that I find much entertainment value in this story, but… Of all of Wilson’s testimony, the “you’re too big a pussy…” might be the least believable part, at least to me. ---
**Author:** ![Fallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@Fallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fallen)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3215 "2014-11-26T18:52:13Z")
“When you’ve already assaulted the cop, told the cop ‘you’re too big a pussy to actually shoot me’, …” First, it’s best to not declare this as though it were a recorded statement. Second, if accurate, one wonders whether Wilson decided he needed to prove he was man enough to shoot at someone who’d scuffled with him (later described as punching, but if a 6’6" almost 300-pound man punched you, you’d in fact have injuries, whereas Wilson didn’t (I cannot call that right-cheek redness so much as a contusion). I find it entirely plausible that Wilson has one or more false memories that he must believe are true to remain sane and explain/rationalize what occurred and his assertion that he \*could not have done \*\*anything \*differently (which is of course nonsense). People at the heart of a traumatic event – and killing someone, albeit someone you refer to as behaving in a “supernatural” way … as a “demon” and “it” – routinely have false memories, which is an entirely separate issue from regular human memory issues not being reliable/like a recording.[1] (If victim memory was rock-solid reliable, there wouldn’t be so many exonerations in those cases where DNA has been retained or obtained. Victims have been “100% certain” of their attacker only to find out … not their attacker. Some people find a way to admit their mistake and others (being human) cannot. We all know the folks whose egos can’t allow them to even admit the tiniest mistake; imagine what you’d be up against when it comes to a literally life and death situation.) [1] Never mind how often we’ve all said over our lifetimes “I could’ve sworn” and indeed we COULD have sworn to X that wasn’t accurate, there are any number of parents who’ve left their babies to die in hot cars whose minds created false memories to protect them from the devastation of what in fact happened. Had their babies disappeared and fate unknown, they’d be in a position to leave the false memory intact. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3216 "2014-11-26T18:56:32Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Considering the autopsy reports proved that to be false, I think your point is moot. Forgive my frustration here, but since I just went over this point, you obviously ignored it. Let me get your attention: You stupid fuck! The autopsy report CANNOT speak to whether he was shot at, except to illustrate when he was actually hit. Do you understand? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3217 "2014-11-26T19:02:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does any physical evidence contradict any of Wilson’s testimony? > **[Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814)** > > Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation Where physical evidence was not collected, it is not possible to contradict that testimony. For example, apparently no effort was made to gather fingerprint evidence from the gun. Apparently, Wilson washed blood evidence from himself. A number of other oddities certainly are eyebrow raising. ---
**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 26, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3218 "2014-11-26T19:04:36Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Forgive my frustration here, but since I just went over this point, you obviously ignored it. Let me get your attention: You stupid fuck! The autopsy report CANNOT speak to whether he was shot at, except to illustrate when he was actually hit. > > Do you understand? That’s correct. Fortunately, we have recordings of when the groupings of shots were fired, and can match those with the autopsy. There was no time for him to turn round during the bursts of fire. Do you honestly not think the grand jury went over this? If there’d been any evidence he shot him in the back, he’d be on trial for murder now, and if there was evidence he tried and failed to do so, probably for attempted murder. Wilson did absolutely nothing wrong. He did what everyone has the right to do, what he was trained to do. ---
**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 26, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3219 "2014-11-26T19:14:57Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Wilson did absolutely nothing wrong. He did what everyone has the right to do, what he was trained to do. I can certainly understand why someone might believe that there’s not enough evidence to conclude with confidence that Wilson committed an unlawful shooting, but I’m having trouble understanding how anyone can be _absolutely certain_ that Wilson didn’t do anything wrong and was absolutely 100% correct with every single thing he did. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3220 "2014-11-26T19:17:29Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > It doesn’t. I wouldn’t expect a constant though based on historical experiences of gunshot wounds. You’d probably be looking at a delay ranging from almost insignificant to infinity. Some people don’t realize they’ve been shot till after an encounter is over (and don’t need the affected parts for locomotion). Some drop instantly. The British TV show QI recently made this point. Apparently people fall down because they’ve seen people on TV fall down after being shot. If they don’t know they’ve been shot, which is common, they remain on their feet. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=160) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=162)