by Sixstrings » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 23:23:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Yeast', 'M')eanwhile i have read the story as given by members on this site and compared to what several danish media are writing.
And the description of the incident is quite different from the version quoted here on this site.
The Danish media paints a quite different picture:
Two witnesses that are not involved in the case otherwise says that Brown was holding his hands in the air in surrender - and was then shot two times - which were the shots that killed him.
This is in my opinion cause to make a case. Is the version of his surrender not in the American media?
Just because "Danish media" says "two witnesses said something" doesn't mean that's what happened. Your media is likely liberal with an agenda, so they're reporting what fits their agenda and their bias.
For starters, witnesses are notoriously unreliable in ANY case, five witnesses will often see five different things.
So for a jury, a lot more goes into it, totality of all the physical evidence and credibility of witnesses. A lot of the "witnesses" in this case were never really there, and later admitted they just heard about it in the neighborhood. Many of the witness outright "lied, and made it up" according to the DA.
So the upshot is that some witness said one thing, and then other witnesses gave Wilson's version.
It all boiled down to the one witness that corroborated Wilson, in that Brown made that final "head down, footbtall player" rush at Wilson. And that's when he shot again, and shot Brown in the top of the head, which makes sense if Brown was rushing the cop "head down like a football player."
Peak Yeast -- bottom line on all of this, per laws in the state of missouri, there was never any case here to start with. And really not even enough for a grand jury, the DA only did that out of abundance of fairness, due to protests.
Grand jury did its job. There is no probable cause for trial. The officer was doing his job, and followed his training.
And the grand jury spent months on this, very thorough, they asked good questions. A grand jury is like a "fact finding" thing, it's different from criminal trial, but I think they got to the bottom of it here fair enough.
Autopsy evidence, dna, ballistics, and witnesses all backed up the officer's version. Not to mention that robbery video -- that was case closed for me, soon as I saw that thing.