[Vision2020] Challening issues

Mon Dec 1 01:07:58 PST 2014

"criminally negligent homicide" wasn't on the table.  The grand jury didn't even indict on "unlawful discharge of a firearm" which was only a misdemeanor.  I agree with Sunil's assessment about the prosecutor.  He didn't want to prosecute this case and got the outcome he was looking for from the grand jury.

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challening issues
From: thansen at moscow.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 18:10:54 -0800
CC: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com

No, Mr. Dredge.
I have said, and suggested repeatedly . . .
"Officer Wilson should have been indicted and charged with "criminally negligent homicide".  Thusly, fulfilling the purpose of a grand jury . . . that there is probable cause that Brown was unjustly killed . . . and that Officer Wilson may be the perpetrator of that crime . . . or a lesser-included offense."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2014-November/099013.html
The problem is with you, Mr. Dredge.  
The standard for a grand jury is "reasonable cause".  Is there reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed?  Is there reasonable cause to believe that the accused may have committed the crime?
The standard for a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
You tend to apply the standard of "reasonable doubt" to the grand jury.  WRONG!
'Nuff said.

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)http://www.MoscowCares.com  Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho  
On Nov 30, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:

Tom's view is that Officer Wilson be required to prove his innocence beyond all of Tom's doubts and since facts of this case don't matter to Tom, Wilson should be found 'guilty' of [insert anything] and imprisoned.

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 16:59:46 -0800
From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
To: thansen at moscow.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challening issues

I don't have links to the recordings of the calls, but journalists at the Post-Dispatch have reported that he called shortly after the robbery was reported to see if he was needed, then called two minutes later saying "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car."  Wilson claims in the Grand Jury testimony that he had called out "Shots fired, send all cars", but that his radio had been jarred and the channel changed, presumably during the punching while he was in the car and the ensuing scuffle for the gun.  Not that I expect you to take testimony to a Grand Jury proceeding whose outcome you disagree with as anything other than complete lies, even though it was presumably given under oath.  Not that I really give a damn, all I'm doing is letting you know that Scott wasn't making those two calls up.  If you still don't believe they happened, I can't help you.

I don't know what to tell you about his injuries, as I look at a bruise on the palm of my hand I got when I tripped over a curb while out walking with a friend.  It didn't show up until two days later.

If you think there's even a tiny chance that his testimony wasn't outright fabrication, then you will be interested to hear that he claims to have been hit twice in the face, then he went through a checklist to see which weapon he should use because he was worried he would pass out if he kept being punched.  He didn't have a Taser, he needed his left hand to get to his mace, which he was using to try to ward off blows by Brown, and he couldn't get his baton out because he would have had to lean forward into the steering column to make enough room for himself to draw it.  So he settled on getting his gun out.  

Paul

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
I seriously doubt those "backup" calls ever happened.  To prove his claim, Officer Wilson's attorney should have subpoenaed the dispatcher's recordings of those calls.  
Otherwise, all they/we have is Officer Wilson's claim, similar to . . .
----------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of National Public Radio at:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/25/366519644/ferguson-docs-officer-darren-wilsons-testimony
<image1.jpeg>
Now, tell me . . .
Does Officer Wilson look like he has suffered "two [punches] to the face" from Brown (3-4 inches taller and 50-60 pounds heavier than Officer Wilson)?
<image2.jpeg>
(Not even a blemish)
--------------------------------------
For this, Wilson shot and killed (unarmed) Brown.
Any time, Mr. Rumelhart.
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares"http://www.MoscowCares.com  Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho 
On Nov 30, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Paul Rumelhart <paul.rumelhart at gmail.com> wrote:

Both backup calls are described in this article from Newsweek:  http://www.newsweek.com/darren-wilsons-grand-jury-testimony-286908?piano_d=1

You're welcome.

Paul

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
Mr. Dredge -
Do you have ANYTHING, beyond your imagination, to substantiate your claim (a linked citation would be appropriate) that Officer Wilson, an armed police officer (in a car) in pursuit of an unarmed (and on foot) 18-year-old, called for backup?
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)http://www.MoscowCares.com  Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho

On Nov 30, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:

He did radio for backup Tom.  Twice.  Once as he was backing up to the suspects and again after shots were fired.

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challening issues
From: thansen at moscow.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 04:18:14 -0800
CC: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com

Question . . .
Why didn't Officer Wilson use his police radio to contact other police units in the area when it became evident that Brown (an unarmed 18-year-old) was fleeing, instead of drawing his gun and firing it several times at Brown?  
Until that question is answered satisfactorily . . . in my opinion . . . Officer Wilson should have been indicted and charged with "criminally negligent homicide".  Thusly, fulfilling the purpose of a grand jury . . . that there is probable cause that Brown was unjustly killed . . . and that Officer Wilson may be the perpetrator of that crime . . . or a lesser-included offense.
But, I guess that question will neither be asked nor answered.

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares"http://www.MoscowCares.com  Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho

On Nov 29, 2014, at 11:08 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:

Sunil, what crime would you have charged him with and what supporting evidence would back this charge?

From: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 21:40:35 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challening issues

Scott,

You asked, 'would it disappoint you if they made the decision not to indict solely 
based on the information presented to them and didn't consider present 
or historical race issues at all?'

No, it wouldn't disappoint me if the grand jury didn't consider present 
or historical race issues at all. That was not their job. I did not expect them to indict for a racially related charge, and that shouldn't have been on the list of possible offenses. There were other charges for which they could have indicted without adding that element.

Sunil

From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:01:57 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Challening issues

I know this is aimed at Paul, but I'm going to chime in all the same.  To specifically answer your questions to Paul as if they were asked to me:
- do you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism? Yes
- If so, what criteria do you use to evaluate whether or not it is present in a situation?  Statistics of the category of institutionalized racism that applies coupled with specifics of the present situation
- Do you admit that white privilege exists? Yes.  Here is a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege

Now since you've previously written that you were 'hoping that the majority of the white members of the jury would overcome a long standing history of racisim in Missouri and bring an indictment that would have facilitated a public trial', would it disappoint you if they made the decision not to indict solely based on the information presented to them and didn't consider present or historical race issues at all?

-Scott

From: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com; paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 17:58:58 -0800
Subject: [Vision2020] Challening issues

Paul, do you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism?  If so, what criteria do you use to evaluate whether or not it is present in a situation?  What  is the history of institutional racism in the U.S.  Do you admit that white privilege exists?  Have you ever experienced prejudicial treatment based on skin color?  I ask because these questions not to criticize but in the hope that you will reflect upon them and perhaps consider that it is likely that you have not had wide experience with the concept.  You may want to seize the opportunity to learn from others who have first-hand experience on the topic.
Rose 

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  

=======================================================

 List services made available by First Step Internet,

 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

               http://www.fsr.net

          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20141201/cfd2507a/attachment-0001.html>