Ok, so the Ferguson grand jury decided not to indite, which should have been expected based on how the prosecutor handled it. And, as expected, people are freaking out and burning shit. I'm going to assume that this is sufficiently everywhere that I don't need a link.
My question is, why the fuck was the announcement made after dark? The earlier protests were peaceful during the day and violent at night. Why wouldn't you want as much daylight as possible after the announcement? If I'd been in charge I would have made the announcement Thanksgiving morning in a blatant attempt to minimize, as much as possible, this type of shit.
My guess would be (and it's only a guess), that the police were mistakenly hoping the mob might cool down. But I don't think it's any surprise that Ferguson has been anxiously waiting to riot for the last week. Still, the lack of a timely response to the verdict is mysterious. This morning was the first time I had actually read specific details of how the shooting occurred. I doubt that everyone has the same opinion about what actually happened. The crucial flash point seems to be the verdict, not the information that led to the verdict. Nor do we know if the information was correct or not.
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 24, 2014, 11:36:24 PM
Ok, so the Ferguson grand jury decided not to indite, which should have been expected based on how the prosecutor handled it. And, as expected, people are freaking out and burning shit. I'm going to assume that this is sufficiently everywhere that I don't need a link.
My question is, why the fuck was the announcement made after dark? The earlier protests were peaceful during the day and violent at night. Why wouldn't you want as much daylight as possible after the announcement? If I'd been in charge I would have made the announcement Thanksgiving morning in a blatant attempt to minimize, as much as possible, this type of shit.
Local news was showing people looting at 5 AM. I doubt the timing of the release was a factor in that. The local police chief said he wasn't informed as to when it would be released.
FYI, I live 7 miles from Ferguson. My wife drives through there on her war to work and back. Or she used to, now she's going the Great Circle route.
I agree the timing is puzzling, almost frustrating to the point of baffling. You KNOW,,hell everyone KNEW this would blow up. The morning should have been the chosen time.
What is sad to me is the fact that the rioting was a given. If the citizens of that area want change, they should do it by registering to vote and coming out en masse, and organizing efforts to create a better environment to work from with the city and the police.
Quote from: stromboli on November 25, 2014, 08:16:59 AM
What is sad to me is the fact that the rioting was a given. If the citizens of that area want change, they should do it by registering to vote and coming out en masse, and organizing efforts to create a better environment to work from with the city and the police.
They should have looted West County Center, not some discount clothing store. That would have gotten some serious attention.
This whole thing is ridiculous. Acting like a bunch of animals and burning down your community because a violent thug and thief pretty much committed suicide by cop.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 25, 2014, 09:18:37 AM
This whole thing is ridiculous. Acting like a bunch of animals and burning down your community because a violent thug and thief pretty much committed suicide by cop.
Prisons are filled with these types, though. Imagine if all cops just shot them all dead? Guess we wouldn’t need a justice system then, eh?
While I don’t pretend to know all the facts and cops have a very hard job, do we suppose that most of the violent criminals in prisons surrendered willingly? Lol That they all went to jail peacefully?
If your life is in jeopardy, that’s one thing…but I’m sure there are MANY cops who have felt their lives were in jeopardy…that managed to arrest ‘’violent thugs.’’ (without resorting to shooting them first)
Almost sounds like a conspiracy theory that they did it that way. Realizing the riots would happen, they timed it for maximum effect, to set off the rioters and thereby justify more police presence and more bad press for the people that live there. And nothing useful is gained from this that I can see. Sad.
Quote from: Deidre32 on November 25, 2014, 09:30:02 AM
Prisons are filled with these types, though. Imagine if all cops just shot them all dead? Guess we wouldn’t need a justice system then, eh?
While I don’t pretend to know all the facts and cops have a very hard job, do we suppose that most of the violent criminals in prisons surrendered willingly? Lol That they all went to jail peacefully?
If your life is in jeopardy, that’s one thing…but I’m sure there are MANY cops who have felt their lives were in jeopardy…that managed to arrest ‘’violent thugs.’’ (without resorting to shooting them first)
He was clearly not a very good thug (you're supposed to run from the cops, not attack them and go for their gun). He attacked a cop. At that point, I have no sympathy when you are shot dead. I don't know exactly what happened, but when you start attacking a cop, especially when you are much bigger than him, you are asking to die.
QuoteAt that point, I have no sympathy when you are shot dead. I don't know exactly what happened, but when
So you have no sympathy even though you don't have a fucking clue what really happened other than MSM press releases and assume cops are all good guys and anyone not kowtowing to police must be bad? Please, do tell exactly what you DO know to pass such a judgement..
Cops are people. I have worked with them and frankly they didn't impress me much. Some of them join to do good, but many join so they can be bullies with a badge. Every situation involving a cop should start at square one- never assume automatically the cop is the good guy. Unfortunately, many killings or highly improper behavior by police have been glossed over to supposedly protect the good guy image. I'm against it- they should be as accountable as anyone, and too often aren't.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 25, 2014, 10:15:47 AM
So you have no sympathy even though you don't have a fucking clue what really happened other than MSM press releases and assume cops are all good guys and anyone not kowtowing to police must be bad? Please, do tell exactly what you DO know to pass such a judgement..
No, I don't support the police state. I don't know that the police officer acted exactly as he was supposed to after he was attacked. What I was trying to say is that I have no sympathy for Brown whether the cop did what he was supposed to do by the book or not. Brown attacked and went for the gun. I don't care if he was in the process of putting up his hands or whatever a couple seconds before he died. He attacked and went for the gun and he was responsible for putting the cops mind into survival mode, and so he paid for his actions.
If they could prove the cop did something wrong he should have had to deal with the consequences. They couldn't.
Well, I was convinced who the bad guy was when I saw the vid of the kid shoving the little guy around after he stole the cigars. He was a bully.
what bothers me most here is the near total lack of transparency and the simple fact that police are nearly impossible to prosecute as if they could never do wrong in any shooting..
http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop
QuotePolice shootings in America
First, the big picture. Last year, the FBI tallied 461 “justifiable homicides†committed by law enforcementâ€"justifiable because the Bureau assumes so, and the nation’s courts have not found otherwise. This is the highest number in two decades, even as the nation’s overall homicide rate continues to drop. Homicides committed by on-duty law enforcement make up 3 percent of the 14,196 homicides committed in the United States in 2013. A USA Today analysis of the FBI database found an average of about ninety-six police homicides a year in which a white officer kills a black person.
The FBI’s police homicide stats are fuzzy, and they are surely an undercount, given that they come from voluntary reports to the FBI from police departments all over the country. That the federal government does not keep a strict national tally shows just how seriously it takes this problem. A crowdsourced database has sprung up to fill the gap, as has a wiki-tabulation.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about these police killings, many of them of unarmed victims, is that our courts find them perfectly legal.
SCOTUS and the license to kill
Chapter 563 of the Missouri Revised Statutes grants a lot of discretion to officers of the law to wield deadly force, to the horror of many observers swooping in to the Ferguson story. The statute authorizes deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody†if the officer “reasonably believes†it is necessary in order to “to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony…or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.â€
But this law is not an outlier, and is fully in sync with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The legal standard authorizing deadly force is something called “objective reasonableness.â€
This standard originates in the 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner, which appeared at first to tighten restrictions on the police use of deadly force. The case involved a Memphis cop, Elton Hymon, who shot dead one Edward Garner: 15 years old, black and unarmed. Garner had just burgled a house, grabbing a ring and ten bucks. The US Supreme Court ruled that a police officer, henceforth, could use deadly force only if he “has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.†The ruling required that the use of force be “objectively reasonable.†How this reasonableness should be determined was established in a 1989 case, Graham v. Connor: severity of the crime, whether the suspect is resisting or trying to escape and above all, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others. All this appeared to restrict police violenceâ€"even if, in the end, Officer Hymon was never criminally charged for fatally shooting Edward Garner.
“Objectively reasonableâ€â€"what could be wrong with that? But in actual courtroom practice, “objective reasonableness†has become nearly impossible to tell apart from the subjective snap judgments of panic-fueled police officers. American courts universally defer to the law enforcement officer’s own personal assessment of the threat at the time.
The Graham analysis essentially prohibits any second-guessing of the officer’s decision to use deadly force: no hindsight is permitted, and wide latitude is granted to the officer’s account of the situation, even if scientific evidence proves it to be mistaken. Such was the case of Berkeley, Missouri, police officers Robert Piekutowski and Keith Kierzkowski, who in 2000 fatally shot Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley out of fear that the victims’ car was rolling towards them. Forensic investigations established that the car had not in fact lurched towards the officers at the time of the shootingâ€"but this was still not enough for the St. Louis County grand jury to indict the two cops of anything.
Not surprisingly then, legal experts find that “there is built-in leeway for police, and the very breadth of this leeway is why criminal charges against police are so rare,†says Walter Katz, a police oversight lawyer who served on the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review until it disbanded in July of this year. According to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine Law School, recent Supreme Court decisions are not a path towards justice but rather a series of obstacles to holding police accountable for civil rights violations.
A News reporter was hit in the head a rock while reporting about the looting and fires. What part of two wrongs don't make right do the people in Ferguson not understand? Does anyone think that the people looting and torching buildings give a rats ass about the kid that was shot? They were just looking for an excuse to act like a bunch of idiots. Burning down and destroying your own town, robbing stores, and hitting innocent people with rocks is not acting civilized, for any reason. If they want to avoid having people be prejudice towards them because they are black, then they should act like civilized human beings, not a bunch of wild animals.
Do you're children, or you, act like this when prejudice is directed toward you, or you don't like the verdict of a jury? If this is the way they act before the police shooting, and don't listen when an officer tells them to stop, or a woman says stop, they deserve to get shot. I'm tired of hearing prejudice when black thugs get caught breaking the law. Every cop I have known in Joliet, my home town, was a thug in High School, and when two thugs met and one has the permission to shoot to kill, and you didn't listen to his demands, you got shot, white or black, armed or not. Nothing new there, go looking for trouble and you will find it. Solitary
I look forward to all kinds of idiots putting forward their opinion on this without having the first clue what the facts are.
Try not to set your cat on fire.
Quote from: Solitary on November 25, 2014, 12:41:36 PM
Does anyone think that the people looting and torching buildings give a rats ass about the kid that was shot? They were just looking for an excuse to act like a bunch of idiots.
You are right. The response has only fractionally been about Brown. Instead his death has been an excuse for people to latch other issues onto local anger. Then you add in--especially with all this buildup and announcements about the impending grand jury result--out of town agitators arriving and it is no longer about what it was about.
Do you remember the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization riot? It was another one of these things where everyone knew for months that there were going to be clashes with police so anyone who wanted to cause trouble showed up even if their cause had little or nothing to do with the WTO.
Why are these people riot...er... what are they protesting exactly?
They want it so that someone can rob a convenience store, start punching a cop in the face, fight for his weapon...but...if he loses that fight for the weapon, let him just surrender and the rule of law goes back to being strictly applied.
Sounds reasonable to me... :wall:
First separate why people are rioting and address the reasons for rioting and not just assume it's people with no grievance doing it for no reason other than for kicks. Rioting and looting are not some new phenomena done only by people out just to destroy their own places, but we have nearly an entire race of people who feel under attack by an extremely oppressive system.
I'm not saying it's justified, but I can certainly understand the frustration people are feeling. It seems counter intuitive, but rioting often will get the attention of people capable of instituting changes.
https://storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on November 25, 2014, 05:01:26 PM
Why are these people riot...er... what are they protesting exactly?
I have seen some fucked up shit on the internet today as a result of this verdict.
You don't have to look very hard to find the answer to this question.
Its an almost no win situation, because anyone can use it as an opportunity to do what they want,from robbery to getting even with some store owner for a slight to just elevating tensions on purpose to create more hostility from day to day. I can understand the frustrations that lead to it, but I don't see anything gained by it.
I think we can finally throw out the myth that racism is dead in post-Obama America.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 25, 2014, 08:14:02 PM
I think we can finally throw out the myth that racism is dead in post-Obama America.
An unfortunate sad truth. we're back to the mid-50's.
We never left.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 25, 2014, 07:40:45 PM
I have seen some fucked up shit on the internet today as a result of this verdict.
You don't have to look very hard to find the answer to this question.
If youre going to assault a police officer and try to take his weapon... then I cant see how its all that outrageous if you end up dead as a result.
If you want to rally under a banner of perceived injustice, this is piss poor choice if you ask me.
Its true that in the states blacks are often singled out by law enforcement, and it is ridiculous; but I cant see how this helps with any of that, or anything else for that matter.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 25, 2014, 09:18:37 AM
This whole thing is ridiculous. Acting like a bunch of animals and burning down your community because a violent thug and thief pretty much committed suicide by cop.
(https://slm-assets3.secondlife.com/assets/5129791/view_large/AmericanHistoryX.jpg?1329869354)
In all seriousness though, it sounds like that cop got some real sweetheart attention from the prosecutor.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 25, 2014, 05:59:12 PM
First separate why people are rioting and address the reasons for rioting and not just assume it's people with no grievance doing it for no reason other than for kicks. Rioting and looting are not some new phenomena done only by people out just to destroy their own places, but we have nearly an entire race of people who feel under attack by an extremely oppressive system.
I'm not saying it's justified, but I can certainly understand the frustration people are feeling. It seems counter intuitive, but rioting often will get the attention of people capable of instituting changes.
I have not spent the time to read the grand jury report, but if the forensics and the science backs the officer, what does that say about the "eye-witnesses" who lied about what they saw? What does it mean when a community will invent their own facts to support a person simply because they are the same color against another. Do you think if the officer was black this would have happened? I have never supported the argument that racism is dead, it is not. It is perfectly acceptable to point out to the world that white people are still racist, it is however, rather stunted to make a claim that the man is keeping you down by burning the establishments of your neighbors who share the same skin tint.
Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2014, 09:50:20 PM
I have not spent the time to read the grand jury report, but if the forensics and the science backs the officer, what does that say about the "eye-witnesses" who lied about what they saw? What does it mean when a community will invent their own facts to support a person simply because they are the same color against another. Do you think if the officer was black this would have happened? I have never supported the argument that racism is dead, it is not. It is perfectly acceptable to point out to the world that white people are still racist, it is however, rather stunted to make a claim that the man is keeping you down by burning the establishments of your neighbors who share the same skin tint.
This exactly! It just speaks to their laziness/stupidity that they wouldn't go trash the neighborhood where mr Wilson the cop lives. (Kidding of course) Why heap the bad on your own community? Shop owners that most likely feel the same injustice about the grand jury decision, now have been further victimized by their thoughtless thug criminal neighbors.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on November 25, 2014, 08:56:54 PM
If youre going to assault a police officer and try to take his weapon... then I cant see how its all that outrageous if you end up dead as a result.
If you want to rally under a banner of perceived injustice, this is piss poor choice if you ask me.
Its true that in the states blacks are often singled out by law enforcement, and it is ridiculous; but I cant see how this helps with any of that, or anything else for that matter.
I am talking about the unbelievably racist comments on all of the news stories about this (and in my own Facebook feed), and the invariably dismissive attitude toward the larger problem, mostly by white American men. There's no problem! They are just being the animals they are, and have you seen the prison statistics and the unmarried birthrate and what races are doing the looting and blah blah blah.
I am actually kind of on the fence about Ferguson itself. I think the law is difficult to enforce, and requires judgment. His word against Brown's was what it boiled down to. But this uprising is not about Ferguson in essence. It is about a much larger problem and this happens to be a possibly inappropriate pressure relief valve.
Quote from: hrdlr110 on November 25, 2014, 11:52:50 PM
This exactly! It just speaks to their laziness/stupidity that they wouldn't go trash the neighborhood where mr Wilson the cop lives. (Kidding of course) Why heap the bad on your own community? Shop owners that most likely feel the same injustice about the grand jury decision, now have been further victimized by their thoughtless thug criminal neighbors.
Redirected aggression.
I read that the NY Times actually published Wilson's address. I am not exactly proud to be American today, nor even a member of the human race.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 25, 2014, 08:14:02 PM
I think we can finally throw out the myth that racism is dead in post-Obama America.
Racism will never die, nor should we expect it to. Do we expect assholes to die out too, and for there to never be another asshole? If you or anyone ever expected racism to come close to dying, that was silly.
I see you only mentioned white racists. I think you're forgetting that blacks are probably the most racist of them all. People of all colours are racist. Let's not ignore that.
Now, we can blame the white man for all the black mans racism, but that's not much different than blaming the black man committing a higher rate of crime for the white man's racism. Neither are good reasons to hate an entire group of people. Blacks are told by their parents that they will never make it in this world because the white man is going to hold them down. If you're raising your child with a victim's mentality, then that's what they will remain. A victim. They'll give up because they've already been told they don't have a chance. And if they do well in school, they won't want to try anymore after their black friends are calling them Uncle Toms and telling them that they're "acting too white" by doing well in school and speaking proper English. Blacks trying to do right are torn down by their own community.
Doing thug shit like looting and burning down the town is only going to make the police look at you harder in the future. These idiots are only making it harder on themselves and the next generation. Doing thug shit is not going to make the police profile you less in the future. We saw Mike Brown's stepfather yelling "Burn this bitch down". The man in Mike Brown's life that was supposed to set an example for him as a man is a dumbass thug himself.
I don't know how to fix things. I want less people in jail, black and white. End the stupid war on drugs for starters.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 26, 2014, 08:24:02 AM
I read that the NY Times actually published Wilson's address. I am not exactly proud to be American today, nor even a member of the human race.
That's pretty crappy. I read another article saying he had grown a beard to changes his looks. So much for growing a beard to change your looks. Of course the media would benefit greatly if he were murdered.
Aitm, I hope you're not suggesting police and prosecutors never invent their own facts or that grand juries are always right. This case was so fucked up with a prosecutor siding with police from day one making the suspect into the victim.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 26, 2014, 10:50:17 AM
Aitm, I hope you're not suggesting police and prosecutors never invent their own facts or that grand juries are always right. This case was so fucked up with a prosecutor siding with police from day one making the suspect into the victim.
as opposed to the media telling us this was just an unarmed kid who playfully snatched a handful of cheap cigars, instead of a man who assaulted a store owner and was a thief?
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2014, 10:58:05 AM
as opposed to the media telling us this was just an unarmed kid who playfully snatched a handful of cheap cigars, instead of a man who assaulted a store owner and was a thief?
So pretty much you've sided with one version of media and dismissed the other side and now Brown's death was fully justified because what? Fox news said so? Interesting..
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 26, 2014, 09:21:36 AM
I see you only mentioned white racists. I think you're forgetting that blacks are probably the most racist of them all. People of all colours are racist. Let's not ignore that.
Um. No I didn't. Also, your assertion that "blacks are probably the most racist of them all" is....
Well. Really pretty gross. And a pretty good demonstration of the fundamental problem.
As for why riots take place, it's not merely criminal behavior with no purpose.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201108/understanding-why-people-riot
QuoteWe hear it all the time about riots: "hooliganism" or, as David Cameron put it last week, "criminality, pure and simple." But riots are complex events, hard to reduce to something as simple as that.
It's no surprise that established authorities, feeling attacked, see the violent behavior of their citizens in such terms. They react by becoming dismissive and punitive. The Chinese government used the same language to characterize student protests in Tiananmen Square, as did Arab leaders recently to describe rebellions in their countries.
And often there is an element of truth in such descriptions. If you have ever been in mob that was agitated about some injustice, you know how contagious it can be. Ordinary people, normal citizens, you and me - we get swept up and do things that would be unlikely under other circumstances: shouting, shoving, throwing rocks, smashing windows, and, yes, even looting.
It usually takes an incident to get a riot started, such as an accident or the police attacking or killing an innocent bystander. But once it has begun, the raging mob has a life of its own. Deep-seated resentments, repetitive frustrations and long standing disappointments galvanize people into action. And the mob provides cover, an anonymity that makes it easier to overcome one's usual reticence or moral scruples. One is immersed, engulfed. And it can become an exuberant experience, a joyful release for long suppressed emotions. It can also become manic, driven, a means of restlessly seeking new outlets. Leadership emerges spontaneously and changes rapidly. It offers a kind of intense belonging, not dissimilar to what spectators feel at a sports event or fans at a rock concert. But because it isn't focused on a game or performance, it easily gets out of hand. Freud described such "mass psychology" in 1924, in the tumultuous aftermath of World War One. Others have studied it since as a recurrent form of group behavior.
This is not to justify the behavior of the mob, but to recognize that we all can so easily become "hooligans" ourselves. To be sure, delinquents and petty thieves can easily join in under the cover the mob provides. But riots do not rely on criminals or "criminality, pure and simple."
Thinking that way, though, can distract us from the underlying conditions that give rise to such events. They can be appeals to be heard, when normal channels don't work. They can be eruptions of rage, when frustrations boil over. They can be expressions of hope that things could change. And they could be all these things - and more.
Newsweek reminded us last week of something about the recent riots that many politicians would prefer not to think: "If there's one underlying condition that these movements share, it has to do with unemployment and bitter poverty among people who desire to be part of the middle class, and who are keenly aware of the sharp inequality between themselves and their country's wealthy elite."
Distracted by the flames and the looting, we can easily forget that these are, as Newsweek put it: "social revolutions with a small ‘r,' protests against social conditions that have become unbearable.
Prosecutors that side with a group that protects and serves us like they did OJ, rather than punks that throw rocks at an innocent reporter hitting her in the head, looting and burning down their neighbors stores like the world owes them a living---how dare them! Let's leave out the race card and look at what happen before and after. Police officer in car gets punched in the face multiple times, tells punk to stop when walking away, disobeys, calling cop names, then gets shot fatally, so all his friends decide to loot stores, break windows, and torch their neighbors stores in retaliation. He was looking for trouble and found it-----cop: "did he have a gun? They usually do in this part of town."
Come on APA, I know there are bad cops, but that kid was asking for it whether he was black, white, or brown. And what all his friends did after show what he was like too. I've had my share of run ins with bad police, and spent two weeks in jail, and a $300 fine, in Georgia when a friend was driving a car one mile an hour over the speed limit in a 40 MPH zone on a long straight road in the middle of no where. I fucking hated cops after that, but I didn't go looking for a fight with them, and expect them to not shoot me if I punched them in the face. :shifty: :pai: :winkle:
Quote from: Mermaid on November 26, 2014, 11:11:21 AM
Um. No I didn't. Also, your assertion that "blacks are probably the most racist of them all" is....
Well. Really pretty gross. And a pretty good demonstration of the fundamental problem.
Funny... Back when I used a lot of drugs, hung out in dope houses and so on on the "wrong side" of town I was never once assaulted by anyone black, but after I quit using and back in my nice cozy white neighborhood I had my face kicked in for giving a white guy a quarter.. Funny how that worked, huh?
Quote from: Solitary on November 26, 2014, 11:16:56 AM
Prosecutors that side with a group that protects and serves us like they did OJ, rather than punks that throw rocks at an innocent reporter hitting her in the head, looting and burning down their neighbors stores like the world owes them a living---how dare them! Let's leave out the race card and look at what happen before and after. Police officer in car gets punched in the face multiple times, tells punk to stop when walking away, disobeys, calling cop names, then gets shot fatally, so all his friends decide to loot stores, break windows, and torch their neighbors stores in retaliation. He was looking for trouble and found it-----cop: "did he have a gun? They usually do in this part of town."
Come on APA, I know there are bad cops, but that kid was asking for it whether he was black, white, or brown. And what all his friends did after show what he was like too. I've had my share of run ins with bad police, and spent two weeks in jail, and a $300 fine, in Georgia when a friend was driving a car one mile an hour over the speed limit in a 40 MPH zone on a long straight road in the middle of no where. I fucking hated cops after that, but I didn't go looking for a fight with them, and expect them to not shoot me if I punched them in the face. :shifty: :pai: :winkle:
If that's the story you're buying it all makes sense. I'm not buying the same story as the narrative is being told. I've been around enough cops and prosecutors to know not to believe their word for much of anything. I was caught up and arrested in a drug sweep years ago when EVERYONE outside was arrested just for being outside, about 40 people with nobody I knew there having anything to do with any drugs..
SmOff You cheap bastard you should have given him a dollar at least---was he black that kicked you in the face, or a nice civil honkey? SmOn Sorry that happened to you! People are all the same, some good, some bad, and some desperate enough to say fuck societies rules. Been there done that. We as humans are a sorry bunch, and at times the animal comes out in us. :redface:
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 26, 2014, 11:04:27 AM
So pretty much you've sided with one version of media and dismissed the other side and now Brown's death was fully justified because what? Fox news said so? Interesting..
Not at all, I saw the store video of a large man threaten a little one, steal from him and push him aside. Fuck him..get that? FUCK HIM! I don't give a fuck who shot the fuck. He is a fucking thief and a fucking bully. FUCK HIM. I'd shoot the fucker myself, I am tired of these kinds of fucks in this world. Feel bad for the fuck? Go right ahead. I feel bad for the clerk who was smacked aside and is probably still being threatened.
I don't watch Fox.
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2014, 01:06:03 PM
Not at all, I saw the store video of a large man threaten a little one, steal from him and push him aside. Fuck him..get that? FUCK HIM! I don't give a fuck who shot the fuck. He is a fucking thief and a fucking bully. FUCK HIM. I'd shoot the fucker myself, I am tired of these kinds of fucks in this world. Feel bad for the fuck? Go right ahead. I feel bad for the clerk who was smacked aside and is probably still being threatened.
I don't watch Fox.
Do you support the death penalty for all strong arm robberies?
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 26, 2014, 01:20:21 PM
Do you support the death penalty for all strong arm robberies?
No, not the point. I am not granting hero status to a fucking thief. If there is sufficient evidence that the cop shot the guy as so many "witnesses" say he did then fine, go get him. Do you want me to shed a tear over a fucking man who steals and beats people up? Not going to happen.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 26, 2014, 11:11:21 AM
Um. No I didn't. Also, your assertion that "blacks are probably the most racist of them all" is....
Well. Really pretty gross. And a pretty good demonstration of the fundamental problem.
I'm just looking at reality and don't care to be PC. They are more disadvantaged and uneducated, so we should expect them to be more racist, don't you think? The more uneducated you are, the more likely you are to be religious and racist. Aren't uneducated whites more likely to be racist? I think so.
On average they are more likely to be racist, since their hatred for the other side goes much deeper. Their ancestors were the ones that were slaves to the rich white man, and they are the ones with less of a chance (no fathers, bad schools, a culture of glorifying ignorance and mocking intellect, etc.) Us white folks don't have as much motivation to hate. We don't feel that we are held down for being white, so we have less reason to get angry. We usually brush off the racism from the other side and don't let it get under our skin. Blacks are more sensitive, and I suppose have more reason to be, and so it makes perfect sense that they would be more racist. I don't see why mentioning this reality should be seen as offensive.
Nice.. Kill all bullies and we'll live in nirvana..
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 26, 2014, 01:36:12 PM
I'm just looking at reality and don't care to be PC. They are more disadvantaged and uneducated, so we should expect them to be more racist, don't you think? The more uneducated you are, the more likely you are to be religious and racist. Aren't uneducated whites more likely to be racist? I think so.
On average they are more likely to be racist, since their hatred for the other side goes much deeper. Their ancestors were the ones that were slaves to the rich white man, and they are the ones with less of a chance (no fathers, bad schools, a culture of glorifying ignorance and mocking intellect, etc.) Us white folks don't have as much motivation to hate. We don't feel that we are held down for being white, so we have less reason to get angry. We usually brush off the racism from the other side and don't let it get under our skin. Blacks are more sensitive, and I suppose have more reason to be, and so it makes perfect sense that they would be more racist. I don't see why mentioning this reality should be seen as offensive.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The PBS News Hour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/) released a chart summarizing witness testimony to the grand jury. There seems to be four areas of general agreement 1) Michael Brown put his hads up when fired upon 2) Michael Brown reached into/directly interacted with the police car [a very vague statement] 3) Michael Brown was facing the officer when fired upon 4) Michael Brown was running away when fired upon.
I find it interesting how few witnesses were asked if Michael Brown put his hands on his waist.
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2014, 01:25:50 PM
No, not the point. I am not granting hero status to a fucking thief. If there is sufficient evidence that the cop shot the guy as so many "witnesses" say he did then fine, go get him. Do you want me to shed a tear over a fucking man who steals and beats people up? Not going to happen.
Answer me this, then, because I have never seen a satisfactory answer from anybody: why, when Wilson shot Brown and downed him, did he not then render aid? Why was an ambulance not called and Brown taken to a hospital to recover so that he may face justice in court, but instead left to bleed out, as if that was all the justice he deserved? I
don't care if Brown stole or beat someone up. The duty of the police is to protect everyone, including the criminals. Criminals are to be tried and convicted and sentenced for their crimes
in court, not face summary execution on the streets.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 26, 2014, 06:06:26 PM
Answer me this, then, because I have never seen a satisfactory answer from anybody:
and you are telling us that you would accept an answer to your questions from anybody but the person in question?
Part of the narrative is Brown was this big mean monster from hell who scared Wilson to the point he feared for his life. FEARED FOR HIS LIFE! Now keep in mind Brown was unarmed, but also keep in mind Wilson is 6'4" and about 250. The cop is built like an NFL linebacker AND well armed and trained to fight and use less than lethal force.
Brown bullied a guy in a store. So what? The case is not and never was about what went on in the store.. If an unarmed kid the same size as the cop scared him so much that he FEARED FOR HIS LIFE then what the fuck is he doing on the police force?
QuoteIf an unarmed kid
ah yes, because everyone knows that an 18 year old is a "kid", all of a sudden....in 2014...18 years old is now a kid. I am sure all 18 year olds agree with that. In 1967 they were soldiers.....now they are kids, mere children,,,just days off the nipple
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2014, 08:25:27 PM
ah yes, because everyone knows that an 18 year old is a "kid", all of a sudden....in 2014...18 years old is now a kid. I am sure all 18 year olds agree with that. In 1967 they were soldiers.....now they are kids, mere children,,,just days off the nipple
Why not just hop on the Send Wilson Money bandwagon? Better yet just become a one man vigilante crime crusader and go wipe out all the bullies of the world for us? While you're at it parse every word ahead of time for us.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 26, 2014, 08:34:10 PM
Why not just hop on the Send Wilson Money bandwagon? Better yet just become a one man vigilante crime crusader and go wipe out all the bullies of the world for us? While you're at it parse every word ahead of time for us.
well let's see here....we have a video of a man stealing from another person and assaulting him and then we have about a dozen eyewitnesses with a dozen different versions of what happened all of which seem to be at odds with the forensics...who should we believe?
And yes, if I was given the authority the world would be perfectly safe for all...everyone...just give me enough bullets to make it happen.
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2014, 07:52:22 PM
and you are telling us that you would accept an answer to your questions from anybody but the person in question?
His answer is not satisfactory.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 26, 2014, 09:53:43 PM
His answer is not satisfactory.
So the assumption is that with the entire nation watching that the local authorities, being watched by the FBI, and under the glare of the US Attorney General, had some hack forensic scientist manufacture his findings, then fabricate pictures and maybe add a bullet hole or two after the victim was dead, because you know, other forensic experts would be fooled into coming to the same conclusions and all the testimony from multiple residents that were completely different was teased from said authorities to conflict with each other with the purpose to convince a jury, gullible, hand picked and bribed, into reaching the same conclusion....sounds reasonable.
You are aware that the prosecutor in the grand jury has an extremely low burden of proof and never had to call it to begin with to have an indictment and the public perception of the case was tainted long before he made up his mind to call the grand jury. In a grand jury case the prosecution holds ALL the cards. As the saying goes a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 27, 2014, 10:12:47 AM
In a grand jury case the prosecution holds ALL the cards. As the saying goes a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury.
Then you are also suggesting that the silence you hear from the FBI after their investigation means they are also part of the grand conspiracy along with Holder who probably got his take of what happened from the FBI months ago and therefore most likely the President as well and he decided to protect "whitey"?
I can see this is going to be another "They got it wrong!" situation.
They got it wrong.
That said, if there really wasn't enough evidence to get him, than that is just the nature of the law.
Of course they got it wrong..who you going trust, 850 people who say they know what happened even though they didn't see anything or 12 people who heard three months of testimony from 25 "eyewitnesses" with differing stories and hours of forensics and ballistics and other stuff commonly referred to as evidence, you know, that other "stuff" that isn't rampant speculation and conjecture?
Quote from: aitm on November 27, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
Of course they got it wrong..who you going trust, 850 people who say they know what happened even though they didn't see anything or 12 people who heard three months of testimony from 25 "eyewitnesses" with differing stories and hours of forensics and ballistics and other stuff commonly referred to as evidence, you know, that other "stuff" that isn't rampant speculation and conjecture?
Since I don't have access to either (or rather, have ignored the media speculation & don't have access to what the jury had), my gut and just history of police violence in this country.
There was no cross examination and it was held in secret. The prosecutor didn't want to take it to trial and didn't have to call the grand jury. He could have just as easily taken it to trial and when he's up for reelection and if he loses a new prosecutor can and probably will take it to trial. Wilson was never exonerated because he was never tried in the first place. One of the huge problems in our system of jurisprudence is that the courts stack the deck entirely in the favor of police which is why it's extremely rare now to get a conviction against the police much less an indictment.
http://m.thenation.com/article/190937-why-its-impossible-indict-cop
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 27, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
There was no cross examination and it was held in secret.
again, the FBI also did an investigation, 3 separate autopsies were conducted and a mountain of forensic and ballistic information seemed to convince those who actually heard it.
Quote from: aitm on November 27, 2014, 06:44:22 PM
again, the FBI also did an investigation, 3 separate autopsies were conducted and a mountain of forensic and ballistic information seemed to convince those who actually heard it.
You're not really paying attention to why the feds aren't doing anything, yet. It's the same reason that cops are almost never indicted and it has much to do with previous cases and stupid SCOTUS decisions.
Hey look aitm, I get it. You think Michael Brown deserved to be killed and nothing is going to change your mind, much less an indictment, trial and conviction.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 27, 2014, 06:54:12 PM
You're not really paying attention to why the feds aren't doing anything, yet. It's the same reason that cops are almost never indicted and it has much to do with previous cases and stupid SCOTUS decisions.
Hey look aitm, I get it. You think Michael Brown deserved to be killed and nothing is going to change your mind, much less an indictment, trial and conviction.
I say bullshit APA. If the guy did what they say he did, then they would go after him. The FBI saw the forensics early on which is why, imo, they issued the nationwide warning they did and why the governor set loose the national guard. You really thank with the POTUS looking on and the US AG watching they are going to"whitewash" it? This is not the 50's anymore and I don't think that as soon as a white cop shoost a black person that all the black people who are part of the local police, FBI, forensic scientists, ballistic sciences and prosecutors look the other way. The forensics and ballistics put the man in the car when he was shot at least once
OK aitm.. I'm done with this silly argument of yours. The police are never wrong and should kill any bully at any time..
Read up on how the legal system is rigged to favor police in the meantime..or not. I don't really care. You made up your mind so no point in trying with you.
A view from afar:
FIrst off, the riots have nothing to do with the shooting incident in exactly the same way that riots after a sporting event have nothing to do with the sporting event. It's mob mentality and it occurs everywhere.
People (of every color) are prone to mob mentality when emotions are running high and there is not enough authority present. It seems not to matter at all WHY emotions are running high.
After the 2011 stanley cup final in Vancouver, there was little police presence and the crowd that poured onto the street went nuts. Set police cars on fire, smashed windows, looted and burned down stores.
This has been studied and it has been found that being part of a group can destroy people's inhibitions, making them do things they'd never otherwise do.
So, blaming the riots on race is way off base. Every race behaves like this under the "right" circumstances. The authorities had ample warning as to the feelings and crowds in the area and I think they dropped the ball big time.
As to the verdict.. my opinion is pretty much the same as aitm.
The original story "innocent kid minding his business shot in unprovoked attack by cop" (which I bought into) changed dramatically, and yet even as the facts were revealed, those who had already been shocked by the initial story were stuck with feeling that it was just murder pure and simple.
He robbed a store and assaulted a clerk.
He attacked the cop.
They struggled for the gun.
The eye witnesses contradicted each other.
None of these facts were in the original news stories. Had they been, I don't think this story would have attracted the attention of the national media and we wouldn't even be discussing it.
The only people in any position to judge are those who were presented with every piece of evidence. All the Facebook/ internet judging is useless.
It's too bad really. The numbers tell us there is a problem with the justice system targeting people of color. This was the wrong case to use as an example.
I have heard before, in regards to looting and riots, "It is the last act of a desperate and ignored people." I feel it has become the first act of a spoiled and opportunistic people. rabid lemmings. greedy sheep. regular people. just showing how ugly we can be on the inside by reflecting it outward. I feel that the looters and rioters do nothing but support my thoughts on people being evil and back up my hatred for people. not a person, mind you, but people. group mentality is as dangerous as a politician's lies. all it takes is one match to burn down a forest and one person to break a window to spiral a protest into chaos. and not only do we have the flame fanners (media), but we have the individual arsonists that throw gasoline into the fire. bringing skin color and genetic background into the mess is like putting up razor wire through the thoughts of equality. using words like "empowerment" is driving the barricades into the ground. I have seen racism my whole life. from the Sioux, Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Asians... it doesn't matter. there is one constant: it's all someone elses fault. while I believe it is necessary for a group to make some noise from time to time, it seems to quickly get out of control. it has become a security blanket smothering those who take shelter in the warmth of its' folds. everyone wants justice. too bad the justice is not a unified thought or action. there is very little black and white in the world, but millions of shades of gray. what is it we can hope to accomplish when we can't even extinguish the flames of racism, sexism, and overall bigotry? and the constantly over looked beliefs of religion (or lack there of)? everyone is excluded from one group or another because of beliefs. you are right, you are wrong, it's cut and dried, black and white. peaceful protest has gone down the drain. riots and looting is the new peace march. the media runs the bellows as the arsonists throw more wood and gasoline into the bonfires of hate and chaos. justify things however you like to one side or another, but I'm gonna get some beers and watch all your fires burn down the world. what I believe, and I could be wrong since that's how beliefs work, is that there's enough beer to share for anyone who wants to join me. we'll get drunk, make smores, and piss on the glowing embers.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 27, 2014, 07:25:21 PM
You made up your mind so no point in trying with you.
ahh,, pot meet kettle.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 27, 2014, 07:25:21 PM
OK aitm.. I'm done with this silly argument of yours. The police are never wrong and should kill any bully at any time..
Read up on how the legal system is rigged to favor police in the meantime..or not. I don't really care. You made up your mind so no point in trying with you.
You're way off the mark. I read the entire thread and he never said any such thing,
In fact, it appears to me he has indeed looked at the specifics of this case while you ignore the specifics and instead allow your prejudices and preconceived notions to be the deciding factor.
Look at your statement above... You want to believe that THIS cop in THIS incident is guilty because the system is rigged. No specifics to the case, just a general feeling of unfairness leading to a guilty verdict in a specific incident. So who is it made up their minds before all the facts were made known?
I think that, if the case had ever gone to trial, there certainly would have been reasonable doubt to acquit, but there was absolutely probable cause to indite. If the prosecutor thought that it wasn't worth trying to take the case to trial then he should have just announced that he wasn't pursuing the case instead of pulling this chicken-shit stunt with the grand jury to try and cover his ass.
I wish that I could point to the process and say that there was a thorough and competently handled investigation and grand jury (or regular) trial and Wilson was treated the same way one other person would have been. But I can't honestly say that. The investigation had serous flaws and the prosecutor sounded like a defense lawyer during the grand jury, even giving misleading statements about the standard of proof the grand jury needed to reach. If a case had been botched this badly in the other direction (to convict some guy) it would easily get tossed on appeals. But because the errors helped a cop walk free we either need to accept it or be labeled cop haters and thug lovers?
If you want to know why I strongly question all this read how sloppily it was handled by Furguson police, even Wilson.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seemingly-unorthodox-police-procedures-emerge-in-grand-jury-documents/2014/11/25/48152574-74e0-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
No chain of custody, near zero accountability which screams coverup and police misconduct.
Quote from: aitm on November 27, 2014, 09:33:21 AM
So the assumption is that with the entire nation watching that the local authorities, being watched by the FBI, and under the glare of the US Attorney General, had some hack forensic scientist manufacture his findings, then fabricate pictures and maybe add a bullet hole or two after the victim was dead, because you know, other forensic experts would be fooled into coming to the same conclusions and all the testimony from multiple residents that were completely different was teased from said authorities to conflict with each other with the purpose to convince a jury, gullible, hand picked and bribed, into reaching the same conclusion....sounds reasonable.
Forget that. That's what happened
in the altercation. I'm talking about what happened
afterward. That Willson
did not render aid onto Brown after he collapsed like he's supposed to, to â€"at the very leastâ€" call an ambulance for the guy that Willson
knew for a fact had a bullet wound.
The most generous interpretation of this is that there is now someone on the Ferguson police force who has proven that he
cannot do his job. He has proven that, in
exactly the kind of situation where he professionally required to keep a level head, and people's lives are
depending on him keeping a level head, has proven that he cannot do so. As such, he should be dismissed from the force and replaced by someone who
can keep a level head in this kind of situation. Where he is, Officer Willson is a proven danger to the public safety of Ferguson because he is incapable of performing those duties in exactly the kind of stressful situations that police officers are expected and required to perform in. This alone should worry you.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 28, 2014, 07:08:36 PM
Forget that. That's what happened in the altercation. I'm talking about what happened afterward. That Willson did not render aid onto Brown after he collapsed like he's supposed to, to â€"at the very leastâ€" call an ambulance for the guy that Willson knew for a fact had a bullet wound.
The most generous interpretation of this is that there is now someone on the Ferguson police force who has proven that he cannot do his job. He has proven that, in exactly the kind of situation where he professionally required to keep a level head, and people's lives are depending on him keeping a level head, has proven that he cannot do so. As such, he should be dismissed from the force and replaced by someone who can keep a level head in this kind of situation. Where he is, Officer Willson is a proven danger to the public safety of Ferguson because he is incapable of performing those duties in exactly the kind of stressful situations that police officers are expected and required to perform in. This alone should worry you.
I have absolutely no problem with your opinion on that.
It's another conspiracy I tell you The whole police force is out to get the blacks, the FBI is in on it, the courts are in on it, and it's all Obamas fault. Give me a break, the guy was way bigger than the cop, hit him two time in the face with his fist, then goes to hit him again and the cop shoves the door open knocking him down, then gets out of his car and tells him to stop and he ignores him and gets shot. Did any of you see the gangs of thugs did after when they went in the store and stole the cigars the guy that got shot had robbed cigarillos the day before? When you are in a life or death situation, your flight or fight emotions kick in, and you will stop anyone putting you in that situation.
The idea he was unarmed is bull shit, I had two men as big as that knock down with one punch, one I got up and got him in a Chinese strangle hold and would have killed him if I hadn't been stopped. And it would have been illegal because of my training, even though I was unarmed. If I had had a gun in both situations they would have been shot---right or wrong. :cool: Why is the cop being judged and not the big thug for what he did? If the big thug would have killed the cop, would everyone still stick up for the thug because he was black?
Quote from: Mermaid on November 26, 2014, 08:19:24 AM
I am talking about the unbelievably racist comments on all of the news stories about this (and in my own Facebook feed), and the invariably dismissive attitude toward the larger problem, mostly by white American men. There's no problem! They are just being the animals they are, and have you seen the prison statistics and the unmarried birthrate and what races are doing the looting and blah blah blah.
I am actually kind of on the fence about Ferguson itself. I think the law is difficult to enforce, and requires judgment. His word against Brown's was what it boiled down to. But this uprising is not about Ferguson in essence. It is about a much larger problem and this happens to be a possibly inappropriate pressure relief valve.
Id be a lot more understanding if they were stealing and destroying the property of people like those who made those comments, rather then doing it indiscriminately.
Id be immensely more sympathetic if the protesting in Ferguson was demonstrated more peaceably (Imo it would almost certainly get a lot more accomplished)
Knee jerk indulgent violence like this... well...
Yeah. It's stupid and short sighted and terrible. The people involved in wrecking the town aren't doing anyone any favors.
There is a fundamental problem, however. This is not about the shooting, it's about the larger picture. The press and the populace attributing this behavior to people because of their race is at the center of the problem.
There seems to be a perception that I and many others assume Wilson to be guilty of murder and Brown to have been some benevolent kind child which is not the case. Brown probably was a bully or maybe a large guy who hadn't yet learned his boundaries.
That's not what is so disturbing.
What is disturbing is that in this nation police are given near free reign to use deadly force whenever there is the slightest threat even against unarmed civilians. In the Brown case Wilson is about the same size as Brown. People forget that 6'4" and appx 250 lbs Wilson is no fainting wall flower and not a man likely to be bullied by an 18 year old kid and I use the term kid not to make him sound innocent, but to indicate a level of maturity.
The courts have and are ruling that police for all intents and purposes don't have to fear anything or anyone because the courts are going to side with them in nearly every case regardless of reason for shooting another human being and lacking absolute irrefutable evidence with video and signed confessions by police they're going to keep getting away with murder. Sloppy police work? No problem. No chain of evidence? Who cares? The fact that the town is 75% one race and nearly all the police in the town another color? Not a problem and the most damming in this case is no trial and no cross examination which is part of the larger pattern of policing, no accountability and the presumption that police only kill when there's an eminent threat to their lives.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 29, 2014, 09:04:30 AM
That's not what is so disturbing.
What is disturbing is that in this nation police are given near free reign to use deadly force whenever there is the slightest threat even against unarmed civilians.
I notice the waffle word "near" in that sentence, so you can say any level of reality is "near" free reign.
Parse every word in the name of the law..That justifies it..The fact of the matter is it's extremely difficult to indict a cop for a shooting and yet easy as hell to indict a civilian for so much as jaywalking.. And before you jump all over that indictment doesn't mean conviction.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 29, 2014, 09:22:21 AM
Parse every word in the name of the law..That justifies it..The fact of the matter is it's extremely difficult to indict a cop for a shooting and yet easy as hell to indict a civilian for so much as jaywalking.. And before you jump all over that indictment doesn't mean conviction.
Nah, you're just trotting out the sweeping generalization. Free to do so, of course.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 29, 2014, 09:30:27 AM
Nah, you're just trotting out the sweeping generalization. Free to do so, of course.
As if suggesting it's all some grand conspiracy theory isn't?
Oh yeah..everything handled properly and the big bully deserves to die. Forget the facts because they just get in the way of just us.
http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1347880
QuoteDuring his "Rewrite" section last night, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out a very serious error that the St. Louis assistant district attorney made when preparing the jury to hear the testimony of Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson.
Transcript
From Raw Story:
O’Donnell said that early on in the jurors’ deliberations, [Assistant D.A. Kathy] Alizadeh handed them a copy of a 1979 Missouri statute saying police were “justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape from custody.†However, he explained, the Supreme Court found those kinds of statutes to be unconstitutional six years later.
...
“She was taking the hurdle that Darren Wilson had to get over in his testimony, and flattening it,†O’Donnell argued. “She was making it impossible for Darren Wilson to fail in front of this grand jury.â€
In 1985 the Supreme Court found laws such as this to be unconstitutional and effectively struck it down. As a result this statute has not be part of Missouri law since that time. But this isn't the worst part of Alizadeh's error. She did not provide the grand jury with the correct statute for several weeks, not until they were about to do their deliberations. Worse still, when her office noted the problem with current case law, it failed to explain to the jury how the law had changed and how this difference would affect their decision-making as to whether Wilson was legally justified in using deadly force. And when one of the jurors asked about it, and whether a Supreme Court decision can trump Missouri state law what they were told was this:
“As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that,†Alizadeh told the juror. Alizadeh’s colleague, Sheila Whirley, added, “We don’t want to get into a law class.â€
Continue reading over the fold.
As was noted here on DailyKos the decision made by the Supreme Court in 1985 under Tennessee v. Garner included the following:
“where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.â€
So the difference, which the St. Louis County DA's Office failed to explain, is that the law changed from allowing officers to use deadly force when they "reasonably believe" a person could be dangerous to him- or herself or to others to requiring that they have "probable cause" for such a belief.
Between the two, "reasonable belief [or suspicion]" is the lesser and far easier to reach standard. As O'Donnell explained, the prior standard allowed police officers to shoot and kill fleeing suspects even when the crime they were suspected of committing was far less than a capital offense. In one case brought up by O'Donnell, a person who simply spat on an officer was shot and killed simply because he turned and ran away afterward.
Here's short discussion of how reasonable belief/suspicion differs from probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion is a term used to describe if a person has been or will be involved in a crime based on specific facts and circumstances. It may be used to justify an investigatory stop. Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch that a crime has been committed but does not require as much evidence as probable cause.
...
A person may not be arrested based on reasonable suspicionâ€"an arrest is made based on probable cause. However, if probable cause develops during an investigatory stop, the officer may arrest the suspect.
...
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that an individual has, is, or will commit a crime. This belief must be based on facts, not a hunch or suspicion. To determine if there was probable cause, the court must find that a person with reasonable intelligence would believe that a crime was being committed under the same circumstances. Probable cause requires stronger evidence than reasonable suspicion.
So when Wilson testified before the grand jury, all they had been told is required for an officer to be justified in using deadly forceâ€"even though this standard was 29 years out of date and hadn't been constitutional since Darren Wilson was a toddlerâ€"is that he or she has little more than a hunch, a belief, a feeling, that a person might be a danger to them or the public and that shooting at the person while he or she flees is necessary to protect the public.
The problem is that people can believe all sorts of things.
They can believe in Santa Claus, they can believe in the Tooth Fairy, they can believe that if they stop clapping Tinkerbell is going to die. The Earth is only 7,000 years old despite fossils that are millions of years old. Green energy and electric cars will never work, even though they are working more and more every day. The president is an illegal alien with a fetish for redefining the Constitution out of existence. President Bush didn't violate the War Crimes Act by authorizing torture. For some people those are perfectly reasonable beliefs to hhold even as many of the rest of us think they are the full-on nutty. But the Supreme Court decided we really shouldn't let police officers decide who lives and who dies based on just that.
What they need in order to use deadly force are facts, not just a belief.
Based on the very excellent and easy to understand summary of all the relevant witness statements written by Mark Sumner, it appears that the initial aggressor in the conflict was Wilson who multiple witnesses stated nearly hit Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson with his car, and then actually did hit them with the car door as he opened it, which then bounced back onto him. He then reached through the window and grabbed onto Brown by the shirt and throat. A struggle ensued with Brown pulling back away from the car, possibly punching to get Wilson to release him until ultimately Wilson pulls his gun and fires two shots, one hitting Brown in the thumb.
Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson then ran in opposite directions away from Wilson's SUV, with Brown traveling about 50 yards and turning into a driveway where he stopped after multiple witness seem to think he's been shot a second time [possibly in the right arm]. He looks at his bloody shirt and turns, talking to the officer as he draws closer in pursuit and then takes several steps back into the street while raising his hands to shoulder height, palms facing Wilson.
Wilson continues to fire, striking Brown again. Brown begins to wobble, stumbling and falling forward, his arms curl inward as he takes a few more steps as he's hit in the eye and top of the head, ultimately landing face first on the pavement.
I can see, from Wilson's perspective that he could believe that as Brown falls and stumbles forward it might seem as if he's trying to run toward him. But besides it not making no any sense for anyone to try to run head first into a hail of bullets, it's goes against the preponderance of witness statements. With the exceptions of witness #10,, whose story is full of holes, witness #40 who is an admitted racist, and Witness #48 whose details are vague and may have had an obstructed view in a minivan, all witnesses state that Brown was in the process of surrendering as the fatal shots were fired.
The overall consensus of the majority of witnesses wasn't that Brown was "bulking up" to attackâ€"uh, and who does that anyway?â€"he was falling onto his face and pulling his arms under him to help break his fall until the final shot went into the top of his head and killed him.
The grand jury should have been wondering what facts there were to prove that Brown was a continuing threat after he fled, after he stopped and turned, after he began to surrender and as he began to fall because it's during all of that period of time that Wilson continued to fire and ultimately kill Michael Brown.
And they could have looked at many of Wilson's own statementsâ€""when I grabbed him he felt like Hulk Hogan," "I felt like a five-year-old," he was so mad he looked like a "demon," no one "likes that neighborhood"â€"to show that what he believed could have been twisted by his own negative attitude and predisposition to assume the worst intentions about the area and of Brown.
Are there enough facts to show that Wilson's use of deadly force was unwarranted? Well, the reason we have demonstrations and even violence and property damage all around the country is because a great many people believe the answer to those question is a resounding "Yes."
But the grand jury didn't do that, they couldn't, because the St. Louis D.A. gave jurors the wrong law to consider and let them keep that incorrect perception right through their deliberations. Under these circumstances there was literally no practical way for them to indict no matter what the majority of witnesses had to say because it doesn't matter what they think or what the facts of the situation were. The jurors were told all that mattered was what officer Darren Wilson believed.
Even if what he believed was totally, completely, flat-out wrong.
In closing I want to also note that St Louis Police Department, which was charged with investigating this case, also made several catastrophic blunders in this case as the grand jury data dump shows.
1. Wilson washed away blood evidence on his own.
In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his bodyâ€"physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson’s testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car.
Wilson was not cut, but had blood on both handsâ€"blood that clearly must have come from Michael Brown.
2. The first officer to interview Wilson failed to take any notes.
The first supervising officer to the scene, who was also the first person to interview Wilson about the incident, didn’t take any notes about their conversation. In testimony more than a month after the incident, the officer offered his account from memory.
...
“I didn’t take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me,†the officer stated.
Wilson and the supervising officer spoke on the phone about the incident several hours later to go over his story after both had already been interviewed by investigators, an open question remains as to whether this call was an attempt to help shape the supervisor's testimony by cementing a narrative in his memory that couldn't be verified by comparing it to his notes.
3. Investigators failed to measure the likely distance between Brown and Wilson.
Yes, reallyâ€"they didn't bother.
An unnamed medical legal examiner who responded to the shooting testified before the grand jury that he or she had not taken any distance measurements at the scene, because they appeared “self-explanatory.â€
“Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there,†the examiner told the jury.
Frankly, from the description by some of the witnesses, the two were quite close after Brown turned around and began to fall forward as the officer continued to approach. Some seem to describe the final shot as, in my opinion, essentially a coup de grâce execution-style blast to the head.
The medical examiner also didn't take pictures of the scene because the batteries on her camera were dead.
4. Investigators did not test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints.
Wilson claimed that Brown grabbed or reached for his gun, but police investigators testified that they never tested the gun for fingerprints, which could have confirmed Wilson's story, because "the gun was never out of Wilson's control."
5. Wilson did not immediately turn his weapon over to investigators after killing Brown.
Wilson left his gun in his holster after using it on Brown, took it back to the station and placed it in an evidence bag himself. Essentially the person who did the shooting was also the last person with chain-of-custody control of the murder weapon.
Standard practice for the St. Louis PD is for an investigator or supervising officer at the scene to place any relevant weapons into evidence.
6. An initial interview with investigators was delayed while Wilson traveled to the hospital with his superiors.
Instead of being interviewed by investigators at the scene, Wilson was first taken to the hospital where he was checked for injuries. Meanwhile, Michael Brown's body lay in the street for four-and-a-half hours, with no measurements or pictures being taken by the medical examiner.
7. Wilson’s initial interview with the detective conflicts with information given in later testimony.
Wilson changed his story. In his initial interview he claimed that he didn't know that Brown was a possible suspect in the cigarillo theft from the local liquor store. He only claimed to have heard the call about the theft on the radio.
Wilson also initially told investigators that although he did see Brown pass something in his hands to Dorian Johnson as the conflict began, he didn't know what it was. It was only in later interviews and testimony that Wilson claimed that he saw the cigarillos in Brown's hand and that this is what led him to believe Brown might be the suspected thief.
With all this in mind, the lackadaisical interviews, sloppy evidence gathering, chain of custody issues and general disinterest in treating this situation as a crime being investigated, it's little wonder that the prosecutors took six weeks to figure out the use of force law from 1979 is no longer in effect.
Or then again, all of these "mistakes" could just as easily have been by design so as to protect a "brother officer" as by happenstance. Perhaps the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI will have to be the judge of that.
Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM PT: I've seen some commentary by a proclaimed attorney that Garner would not affect this case since that was Civil, not Criminal matter - an argument I've yet to see confirmed - however what the Supreme Court found in that case in 1985 has to be underlined with what they found in 1989 under Graham.
In the United States, this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." This case abolished the Fleeing felon rule where a fleeing felon who posed no immediate threat to society (e.g., a burglar) could be shot if they refused to halt.[2]
In Graham v. Connor, (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) the court expanded its definition to include "objective reasonableness" standardâ€"not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have beenâ€"and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the sceneâ€"and its calculus must embody the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
So in reality the Constitutional burden is slightly higher than even O'Donnell describes.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 29, 2014, 09:37:50 AM
As if suggesting it's all some grand conspiracy theory isn't?
Who did that?
I know something you won't do, ever. You won't stop before posting and replace "cops" with "African Americans", "Native Americans", "Latinos", just to see if you're making a bigoted statement and think it's okay because of the target group. Never gonna do that.
What police in other towns do is irrelevant to this case.
Here are the facts presented to the Grand Jury and FBI, decide for yourself if they are in cahoots to lie about the case:
Michael Meyers is the executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. By the way he is black.
The grand jury in St. Louis County showed its unique role in America.
The jury showed its magnificence in standing between the mobs that demand revenge for a horrible death of an unarmed black teen who stood at the end of a white cop’s pistol â€" and an unsteady and uncertain prosecutor who decided to trust the grand jury with the decision as to whether to charge Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown.
Bombshell evidence, testimony laid out in fatal shooting of Michael Brown
From the angle of race relations and the law, trust is necessary and earned, not assumed. This grand jury earned its stripes, laboriously, having taken its time to focus on evidence, and ignoring racial rhetoric.
Some of the evidence presented to the grand jury appeared to support Officer Darren Wilson's statement that he shot unarmed Michael Brown in self-defense â€" but other details seemed to cast doubt on the cop's account.
In announcing Monday that a grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., voted not to indict the white officer in the highly charged killing of the black teen, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch discussed important elements of the evidence.
EDITORIAL: Full facts on Ferguson required in wake of grand jury decision
Speaking at length during a nationally televised press conference, McCulloch described a miscellany of sometimes-conflicting accounts of the 90 fateful seconds that passed between the moment Wilson spotted Brown and a pal walking in a roadway in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson around midday on Aug. 9, to the volley of 12 rounds that left the 18-year-old dead in the same street.
Wilson testified before the grand jury, according to transcripts released Monday night, that before he fired, the teenager slammed the door of his police cruiser on him, prompting him to draw his gun. "I said, 'Get back or I'm going to shoot you,' " Wilson testified.†He immediately grabs my gun and says, 'You are too much of a pu--y to shoot me.'"
Wilson was aware that Brown was wanted for stealing cigars from a convenience store minutes earlier. That point had been in dispute since Ferguson police released a video of the convenience store and said Wilson had known Brown was a suspect â€" only to have the police chief retract that statement not long after, saying the cop didn't make the stop in relation to the theft.
SEE IT: ALL EVIDENCE RELEASED BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR BOB MCCULLOCH
Wilson, in his grand jury testimony, said Brown charged his police car. "The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that's how angry he looked," Wilson told the panel, according to the transcript.
Other details also appeared to align in Wilson's favor.
The first two shots were fired when the officer was still sitting in his vehicle, leaving blood inside the car as well as on Wilson's pants.
"Mr. Brown's blood or DNA were found on the outside of the door," the prosecutor said.
That appeared to support Wilson's statement that Brown tried to strip him of his weapon during the altercation that followed the teen's alleged charging. Brown was 6-foot-4 and 292 pounds, and Wilson said he feared for his safety â€" yet the cop himself is an inch taller and 210 pounds.
RELATED: PARENTS OF MICHAEL BROWN TO MET WITH REV. AL SHARPTON
Wilson testified that Brown punched him in the head after the door-slam, causing him to fear for his life. The teen took off after the first two shots but then stopped, the officer said.
"His right (hand) goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me," Wilson told the jurors. "I tell, keep telling him to go to the ground. He doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot."
In Wilson’s account, Brown keeps charging at him as he fired: “At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him.â€
Ten shots were fired from outside of the police car
Wilson told the panel that, with the charging Brown about eight to 10 feet away from him, he aimed a final shot at his head.
“When he fell, he fell on his face,†the cop testified. “And I remember his feet coming up, like he had so much momentum carrying him forward that when he fell, his feet kind of came up a little bit and then they rested.â€
RELATED: NYC PROTESTERS MARCH TO TIMES SQUARE, BLOCK BRIDGE TRAFFIC
Wilson added: “I’ve never seen that much aggression so quickly from a simple request to just walk on the sidewalk.â€
I tell, keep telling him to go to the ground. He doesn’t. I shoot a series of shots. I don’t know how many I shot.
McCulloch said that Wilson suffered "some swelling and redness to his face" â€" potential evidence that he was punched. Hospital photos shown to the grand jury depicted a minimally injured Wilson with some discoloration on his right cheek and the back of his neck.
McCulloch defended his handling of the matter and release of the material. He said that the case is no longer pending, so there was no reason to withhold the evidence.
"It is now a closed investigation," the prosecutor said.
The U.S. Justice Department is conducting a separate civil rights investigation.
Asked of his thoughts about the incident, Wilson said: "I think I'm just kind of in shock of what just happened, I really didn't believe it.â€
Quote from: Mermaid on November 29, 2014, 07:08:22 AM
Yeah. It's stupid and short sighted and terrible. The people involved in wrecking the town aren't doing anyone any favors.
There is a fundamental problem, however. This is not about the shooting, it's about the larger picture. The press and the populace attributing this behavior to people because of their race is at the center of the problem.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean Im not suggesting a Gandhi or Martin Luther King type figure is needed, but I think people should at least make an effort to look to their example.
I agree about the media, I think they have been irresponsible this entire time. Its almost as if they are willing to sell people out just for the story.
QuoteHe then reached through the window and grabbed onto Brown by the shirt and throat.
How does one reach through a window of a car and grab a guy 6'4" ish by the throat?
That aside. The long term problem is how do we get better cops then?
Quote from: aitm on November 29, 2014, 02:34:04 PM
How does one reach through a window of a car and grab a guy 6'4" ish by the throat?
Presumably the same way someone in the driver's seat of a car gets punched in the right cheek (so hard that he thought the next punch could kill him) by the right fist of someone standing outside/leaning in the driver's window.
serious question; what type of vehicle was the officer in? I've seen it called a "car", "van" and "SUV" which could dramatically change how high the officer was/how tall he could reach as he sat in it.
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 29, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
Presumably the same way someone in the driver's seat of a car gets punched in the right cheek by the right fist of someone standing outside/leaning in the driver's window.
Hell, I been on both ends of that, not that hard, put you have to have a hell of a long arm to reach up sitting in a seat to get 6' ish.
Quote from: Poison Tree on November 29, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
Presumably the same way someone in the driver's seat of a car gets punched in the right cheek (so hard that he thought the next punch could kill him) by the right fist of someone standing outside/leaning in the driver's window.
serious question; what type of vehicle was the officer in? I've seen it called a "car", "van" and "SUV" which could dramatically change how high the officer was/how tall he could reach as he sat in it.
We have SUVs and Chargers here mostly.
There are two issues I see that are going to limit any attempt at solving the problem of cops shooting black men. Until these issues are resolved this isn't going to go away even if they started hanging cops. (Though that might help a little)
One, liberals are going to hate and the other conservatives are going to hate.
The first is black crime. Black men are multiple times more likely to murder than white men. Concerning shootings like the Brown one, it does not matter at all the cause of high black murder rates so I won’t bother getting into that. It is simply a reality that this will lead to racial profiling even if at a subconscious level for the front line workers dealing with crime. i.e. the cops.
Here are the homicide numbers from the DoJ from 1980 to 2008: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Quote“The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost
8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).â€
The second problem is gunsgunsgunsgunsguns. The insane obsession the United states has with handguns is guaranteed to create a jumpy high murder society especially among cops who are naturally going to suspect everyone of packing heat.
The video below is an example of a jumpy cop loosing his mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXmVPxQGTsE
Combine these two issues in a high population country like the US and the shooting death of Michael Brown is not an anomaly, it's guaranteed to happen.
Yep, thousands of times every day, definitely not an anomaly.
Ok, got to resurrect this thread.
More evidence of the prosecutor shirking his duty (http://www.vox.com/2014/12/19/7425533/robert-mcculloch-perjury). How can he justify putting people on the stand knowing they are lying? Apparently including one witness (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236) who lyed about being there, has a mental illness and a history of lying to interject herself into police matters.
I said it before, this process stinks to high heaven. I don't know if the shooting was justified--there probably wasn't enough evidence to establish that no matter what--but how the grand jury was handled was just bull shit. The prosecutor's going to present the jury with "all the evidence", even if some of it is known lies instead of, you know, actual evidence? Again, if he thought there wasn't evidence to proceed he should have just said so instead of flooding the grand jury with crap so that he can hide behind anonymous jurors. If McCulloch is this unwilling to do his job then it should no longer be his job.
Quote from: Poison Tree on December 20, 2014, 03:27:40 AM
Ok, got to resurrect this thread.
More evidence of the prosecutor shirking his duty (http://www.vox.com/2014/12/19/7425533/robert-mcculloch-perjury). How can he justify putting people on the stand knowing they are lying? Apparently including one witness (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236) who lyed about being there, has a mental illness and a history of lying to interject herself into police matters.
I said it before, this process stinks to high heaven. I don't know if the shooting was justified--there probably wasn't enough evidence to establish that no matter what--but how the grand jury was handled was just bull shit. The prosecutor's going to present the jury with "all the evidence", even if some of it is known lies instead of, you know, actual evidence? Again, if he thought there wasn't evidence to proceed he should have just said so instead of flooding the grand jury with crap so that he can hide behind anonymous jurors. If McCulloch is this unwilling to do his job then it should no longer be his job.
The U.S. is about the only place still using Grand Juries. Since this format gives far more power to the prosecutor and prosecutors usually have close relationships with the police, there is definitely an issue with conflict of interest.
Why you don't just switch to the more adversarial method of preliminary hearings like most other common law nations is kinda weird at this point.
QuoteWhy you don't just switch to the... like most other common law nations...
HAHAHAHA!! HAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
HAAAHAAA!
HAHAHA!!!!
HA...haaaa...
United States... adopt rational policy that is proven to work in other countries... that is perhaps the best joke I have seen on the forum. That is just downright un-American, if we didn't invent it, it sucks and fuck you that's why.
(I laugh because it's depressing)