RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Ferguson Grand Jury Decision
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Barrister15



Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 4264
Location: New York, NY


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 11:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jammer wrote:
Quote:
So when anyone attacks a cop or fights with a cop, they're giving that cop the green light to waste their stupid ass. They might not know it. But that's their fucking problem.


No. Just no.

What Mike Brown did was stupid, but he paid the ultimate price. To me, the issue isn't the death of Mike Brown, though to his family and loved ones, it most certainly is. To me, it's the pattern of police having the same mindset that you just described - attack a cop and expect to die. It's questionable how much "attacking" Brown did, but at some point, the threat to the officer was over, yet he continued to fire upon Brown. How else would his body end up some 100+ feet away from Wilson's squad car?

I'm outraged that there are two standards at play here - shoot to kill the black man, shoot to disarm or incapacitate everyone else.

I'm outraged that this farce of a grand jury proceeding meant we'll never know if justice was truly accomplished.

(FYI, read Jeffrey Toobin's piece in The New Yorker for an excellent analysis of the grand jury proceeding.)

I don't know whether Officer Wilson truly believed his life was in danger. His use of hyperbole (calling Brown a "demon") makes me suspect his motivation at the time. I'll admit, it's possible, though, that he believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself and others. But that's not what should have been before the grand jury.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 1:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Barrister15 wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Quote:
So when anyone attacks a cop or fights with a cop, they're giving that cop the green light to waste their stupid ass. They might not know it. But that's their fucking problem.


No. Just no.

What Mike Brown did was stupid, but he paid the ultimate price. To me, the issue isn't the death of Mike Brown, though to his family and loved ones, it most certainly is. To me, it's the pattern of police having the same mindset that you just described - attack a cop and expect to die. It's questionable how much "attacking" Brown did, but at some point, the threat to the officer was over, yet he continued to fire upon Brown. How else would his body end up some 100+ feet away from Wilson's squad car?


Your (jammer's) presumption of what Mike Brown "did" is just one account of what happened. There are conflicting accounts from several people. THAT's What a trial is for - a search for the truth. But no there will be no trail


Barrister15 wrote:
In US v. Williams, Scalia, in his majority opinion stated "It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

That Wilson testified at the grand jury is not unusual -- certainly defendants testify at the grand jury all the time (and usually against the advice of counsel). That he testified for hours at the behest of the prosecution, and that the prosecution presented exculpatory evidence to the grand jury is what made these proceedings so suspect. That McCulloch brought this to the grand jury at all just proved to be lip service to those who called for Wilson to face charges -- the unorthodox way he presented the case to the grand jury, contrary to hundreds of years of American jurisprudence, was a slap in the face to the Brown family and a disservice to the memory of the unarmed young man whose life was lost.

You can characterize Mike Brown however you'd like -- call him a bully, call him a violent criminal -- but no matter what you call him, he didn't deserve a death sentence.


Thanks for your legal insight, Barrister.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19625



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 1:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Barrister15 wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Quote:
So when anyone attacks a cop or fights with a cop, they're giving that cop the green light to waste their stupid ass. They might not know it. But that's their fucking problem.


No. Just no.

What Mike Brown did was stupid, but he paid the ultimate price. To me, the issue isn't the death of Mike Brown, though to his family and loved ones, it most certainly is. To me, it's the pattern of police having the same mindset that you just described - attack a cop and expect to die. It's questionable how much "attacking" Brown did, but at some point, the threat to the officer was over, yet he continued to fire upon Brown. How else would his body end up some 100+ feet away from Wilson's squad car?

I'm outraged that there are two standards at play here - shoot to kill the black man, shoot to disarm or incapacitate everyone else.

I'm outraged that this farce of a grand jury proceeding meant we'll never know if justice was truly accomplished.

(FYI, read Jeffrey Toobin's piece in The New Yorker for an excellent analysis of the grand jury proceeding.)

I don't know whether Officer Wilson truly believed his life was in danger. His use of hyperbole (calling Brown a "demon") makes me suspect his motivation at the time. I'll admit, it's possible, though, that he believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself and others. But that's not what should have been before the grand jury.


You only deign to allow, from the comfort of your life far from the streets of Ferguson and that cop's existence there, that the officer believed he needed to shoot Brown to protect himself. Are you at all grappling with the question of whether he actually did need to use his weapon to save his life?

Sounds like the answer to that is no. Just no.

Quote:
To me, it's the pattern of police having the same mindset that you just described - attack a cop and expect to die.


I want criminals and everyone else to operate under the assumption and reality that if you attack a cop you are likely to die. Cops have guns. If (by default) violent criminals attack police officers those people pose multiple threats to everyone else and must be stopped at all cost. This is a violent world with incredibly violent and disturbed people operating in it at all times. We need cops to take those individuals on and have the capability to handle the job. Few human beings are Michael Brown's size. When someone that large and powerful decides to use his size and power to threaten and attack other people he must face the law.

It's questionable how much "attacking" Brown did, but at some point, the threat to the officer was over, yet he continued to fire upon Brown. How else would his body end up some 100+ feet away from Wilson's squad car?

You say. The threat was over. Witnesses and forensics say that Wilson fired the fatal shot while a) backpeddling b) Brown was advancing on him and c) from a distance INSIDE ten feet. Police are trained that (something like) 25 feet is THEIR danger zone when they are at the greatest risk.

Most things in life are subject to questioning but your quotes indicate that you don't believe, for reasons that so many of you guys are somehow leaving out of your critical comments here, that Michael Brown did what a half dozen black eyewitnesses said he did. Why don't you believe the black witnesses?

Quote:
I'm outraged that there are two standards at play here - shoot to kill the black man, shoot to disarm or incapacitate everyone else.


I don't know what police policy is where you live when it comes to how and when cops are to discharge their weapons. But I do know that in ALL police departments that I know of there is only one policy and that is shoot to kill. So I don't even know what you're talking about here. Please explain or at least provide any cases where the police detail an action wherein they shot people to disarm or incapacitate.

They have other devices. Tasers. Bean bag, etc. But those are for instances where they have a chance to deploy those non-lethal devices.

As I'm typing this and all through this thread I literally can't stop my mind from flashing on the white highly educated progressive who spent a great part of her career working on poverty issues but who is now most notably the founder of a organization that at this point seeks to put lower class black and latino men behind bars for speaking to women like her on the street in a way they don't appreciate. I'm sorry. I'm being honest. This has nothing to do with you, barrister. I've been thinking about all the liberal and progressive outrage over this shooting and I just keep thinking about that lady and her Hollaback efforts.

Like how many of all these more affluent outraged progressives who don't know anything about dealing with people from lower classes, who don't know anything about the dangers of places like Ferguson or many much worse places, are making themselves feel better about everything by going after someone who has to deal with all those petty and not-so-petty criminals and real people with real problems like a cop in a place like Ferguson has to? How quickly would they all be looking around for a cop or punching 911 into their cellphone if someone stole from them or threatened them with physical violence. If they had to live with that. Live LIKE that.

But they don't.

This is actually a case where deadly force was justified. I don't merely THINK it was justified. If all the eyewitnesses are to be believed it WAS justified. Violent attack on a cop. One more punch could have turned that cop into Brian Stowe for the rest of his life. One more punch could have allowed Michael Brown to commandeer the cop's gun.

I truly am done here. You guys continue to cry a river for Michael Brown and destroy a cop who just might have been for all you know simply and bravely doing his job.

I didn't read the Jeffrey Toobin article... I saw the title and have been listening to him on CNN. After seeing the title and listening to him the day after the verdict I was then stunned yesterday (along with, I'm sure, his New Yorker bosses) to hear him say something completely different than anything he'd been saying up to that moment. I don't have it word for word but I'll try to find it because I haven't delated anything from my DVR. But he did a 180 on the grand jury. Seriously. He may not have come down on that side but he changed his tune after seeing more of the evidence.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8980



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 2:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote




White-on-black racism facilitated via police brutality
2014: Tamir Rice (Cleveland, OH)
2014: Akai Gurley (Brooklyn, NY)
2014: Victor White III (Iberia Parish, LA)
2014: Dante Parker (San Bernardino County, CA)
2014: Kaijeme Powell (St. Louis, MO)
2014: Ezell Ford (Los Angeles, CA)
2014: Michael Brown (Ferguson, MO)
2014: McKenzie Cochran (Southfield, MI)
2014: Tyree Woodson (Baltimore, MD)
2014: John Crawford III (Beavercreek, OH)
2014: Jordan Davis (Jacksonville, FL)
2014: Trayvon Martin (Sanford, Florida)
2014: Eric Garner (New York, NY)
2014: Yvette Smith (Bastrop, TX)
2014: Jordan Baker (Houston, TX)
2013: Barrington Williams (New York, NY)
2013: Andy Lopez (Santa Rosa, CA)
2013: Carlos Alcis (New York, NY)
2013: Deion Fludd (New York, NY)
2013: Jonathan Ferrell (Bradfield Farms, NC)
2013: Kimani Gray (New York, NY)
2013: Kyam Livingstone (New York, NY)
2013: Larry Eugene Jackson, Jr. (Austin, TX)
2013: Miriam Carey (Washington, DC)
2012: Chavis Carter (Jonesboro, AR)
2012: Dante Price (Dayton, OH)
2012: Duane Brown (New York, NY)
2012: Ervin Jefferson (Atlanta, GA)
2012: Jersey Green (Aurora, IL)
2012: Johnnnie Kamahi Warren (Dotham, AL)
2012: Justin Slipp (New Orleans, LA)
2012: Kendrec McDade (Pasadena, CA)
2012: Malissa Williams (Cleveland, OH)
2012: Nehemiah Dillard (Gainesville, FL)
2012: Ramarley Graham (New York, NY)
2012: Raymond Allen (Galveston, TX)
2012: Rekia Boyd (Chicago, IL)
2012: Reynaldo Cuevas (New York, NY)
2012: Robert Dumas Jr (Cleveland, OH)
2012: Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr (Orange County, CA)
2012: Shantel Davis (New York, NY)
2012: Sharmel Edwards (Las Vegas, NV)
2012: Shereese Francis (New York, NY)
2012: Tamon Robinson (New York, NY)
2012: Timothy Russell (Cleveland, OH)
2012: Wendell Allen (New Orleans, LA)
2011: Alonzo Ashley (Denver, CO)
2011: Jimmell Cannon (Chicago, IL)
2011: Kenneth Chamberlain (White Plains, NY)
2011: Kenneth Harding (San Francisco, CA)
2011: Raheim Brown (Oakland, CA)
2011: Reginald Doucet (Los Angeles, CA)
2010: Aaron Campbell (Portland, OR)
2010: Aiyana Jones (Detroit, MI)
2010: Danroy Henry (Thornwood, NY)
2010: Derrick Jones (Oakland, CA)
2010: Steven Eugene Washington (Los Angeles, CA)
2009: Kiwane Carrington (Champaign, IL)
2009: Oscar Grant (Oakland, CA)
2009: Shem Walker (New York, NY)
2009: Victor Steen (Pensacola, FL)
2008: Tarika Wilson (Lima, OH)
2007: DeAunta Terrel Farrow (West Memphis, AR)
2006: Sean Bell (New York, NY)
2005: Henry Glover (New Orleans, LA)
2005: James Brisette (New Orleans, LA)
2005: Ronald Madison (New Orleans, LA)
2004: Timothy Stansbury (New York, NY)
2003: Alberta Spruill (New York, NY)
2003: Orlando Barlow (Las Vegas, NV)
2003: Ousmane Zongo (New York, NY)
2001: Timothy Thomas (Cincinnati, OH)
2000: Earl Murray (Dellwood, MO)
2000: Malcolm Ferguson (New York, NY)
2000: Patrick Dorismond (New York, NY)
2000: Prince Jones (Fairfax County, VA)
2000: Ronald Beasley (Dellwood, MO)
1999: Amadou Diallo (New York, NY)



jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19625



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:


Your (jammer's) presumption of what Mike Brown "did" is just one account of what happened.


This is where I have to say that people are losing me. Speak facts. One account? No. Not one. Many corroborate the officer's account. Many black witnesses corroborated the officer's version of events.

The forensics, most notably the fact that at least one shot from the officer's gun hit INSIDE his own vehicle, corroborate the officer's account. Shows that Michael Brown was partially inside the vehicle with him. But the witnesses corroborate this. In fact, Micheal Brown's accomplice's account says that Michael Brown was partially inside the vehicle. No one disputes that and all of the credible witnesses have said that's what happened.

Not jammer's presumption. Bullet penetrated the police vehicle from inside the driver's side door. Witnesses state that Brown was inside the vehicle. Brown was shot for the last time from 8-10 feet advancing on the cop. Cop was backpedaling.

jammer not presuming.

facts not mattering.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 10:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Quote:
I'm outraged that there are two standards at play here - shoot to kill the black man, shoot to disarm or incapacitate everyone else.


I don't know what police policy is where you live when it comes to how and when cops are to discharge their weapons. But I do know that in ALL police departments that I know of there is only one policy and that is shoot to kill. So I don't even know what you're talking about here. Please explain or at least provide any cases where the police detail an action wherein they shot people to disarm or incapacitate.

They have other devices. Tasers. Bean bag, etc. But those are for instances where they have a chance to deploy those non-lethal devices.


Actually, barrister is wrong. The standard is shoot to kill the black man, don't shoot the white man.

Think about the literally dozens of cases that have gotten publicity (and I'm sure there are many more) when white guys walk down the street exercising their open carry privileges with extremely serious firepower, the police come by, politely ask them to stop doing that, they decline to leave and the police let them go about their business. A 12-year old kid in Cleveland with a toy gun gets shot and killed almost before the police car stops. (The video is unimaginably boring for 7-1/2 minutes and then unimaginably awful for 5 seconds.)

If Mike Brown had been white, the odds are 100-1 - maybe 1,000-1 - that no shots would have been fired that day. The whole interaction from the very beginning would have played out differently. That's the fundamental issue here.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/28/14 1:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:


This is where I have to say that people are losing me. Speak facts. One account? No. Not one. Many corroborate the officer's account. Many black witnesses corroborated the officer's version of events.

The forensics, most notably the fact that at least one shot from the officer's gun hit INSIDE his own vehicle, corroborate the officer's account. Shows that Michael Brown was partially inside the vehicle with him. But the witnesses corroborate this. In fact, Micheal Brown's accomplice's account says that Michael Brown was partially inside the vehicle. No one disputes that and all of the credible witnesses have said that's what happened.

Not jammer's presumption. Bullet penetrated the police vehicle from inside the driver's side door. Witnesses state that Brown was inside the vehicle. Brown was shot for the last time from 8-10 feet advancing on the cop. Cop was backpedaling.

jammer not presuming.

facts not mattering.


I am speaking facts jammer. The FACT is there a differing accounts of the events. Just about every account says there was a tussle betwee the two while Wilson was in his vehicle. Some say Wilson was the aggressor and some say Brown. What forensics corporates either POV? No one ever disputed that Wilson's gun was discharged inside the vehicle. Wilson could have pulled his gun and Brown could have reached inside to grab his gun hand in defense. Sounds more reasonable than big bad, thug Mike decided to attack a police officer over some swishers (definitely my opinion, there)

You say witnesses say Brown was "inside" the vehicle. Other witnesses say that Wilson was pulling Brown from inside the vehicle. THE POINT is there are differing witness accounts. A Grand Jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence - only whether there is enough evidence for a trail. Now there won't be a trail - where Wilson would be innocent until proven guilty.

Huff Post had this interesting "scorecard" on two critical eye witness accounts - 1) Did Brown Charge at Wilson, and 2) Were Brown's Hands up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/michael-brown-witnesses_n_6221774.html



1. Did Brown Charge at Wilson? I count 5 "Yes", 10 "No" and 6 "Don't know."

2. Were Brown's Hands up? I count 9 "Yes", 2 "No" and 10 "Don't know."

Looks to me like there should have been a trail, eye witnesses testify and cross examined, forensics presented and questioned, and a jury decide on guilt or innocence based on testimony and evidence.

Given where they were, I'm sure most (if not all) the witnesses were black, so I don't know why you feel the need to point that out.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19625



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/28/14 2:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sit in the driver's seat of an SUV, Tony. Imagine yourself being the 'aggressor' in a physical fight with someone on the street.

The source of the story that the cop grabbed Michael Brown and pulled him into the vehicle was Brown's accomplice, a brainless twit who might be the person more responsible than anyone for one of most significant periods of civil unrest in this country in years. HIs lies and rhetoric set things off. If he'd said, uh, Michael went nuts. Reached into the cop car and started punching the cop. which is what occurred... absolutely nothing else is remotely probably... none of what we've seen in the last six months would have happened.

No one on Rebkell's is so intellectual deficient as to believe that the cop tried to pull Michael Brown into his vehicle. Certainly not you, Tony.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9714



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/28/14 4:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Rude One:
Quote:
This all took place in the middle of the day at the Canfield Green Apartments, a public housing project in Ferguson that has far, far more than its fair share of crime and poverty. Wilson killed Brown on August 9, a little after noon. It was a summer day; school didn't start until August 25. So in the middle of a housing project, with apartments and people all around, Officer Darren Wilson made the tactical decision to fire wildly at an unarmed man who was posing no threat to anyone except him.

As many have said, Wilson could have gotten back in his SUV and awaited backup. But, no matter what you think happened, we know that Wilson decided the best course of action was to fire ten bullets, no matter who might get hurt. We also know that some of those shots hit the apartment buildings around Wilson and Brown. And we know that Wilson is pretty damn lucky he didn't hurt or kill anyone else while he was firing his gun over and over.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/28/14 9:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Sit in the driver's seat of an SUV, Tony. Imagine yourself being the 'aggressor' in a physical fight with someone on the street.

The source of the story that the cop grabbed Michael Brown and pulled him into the vehicle was Brown's accomplice, a brainless twit who might be the person more responsible than anyone for one of most significant periods of civil unrest in this country in years. HIs lies and rhetoric set things off. If he'd said, uh, Michael went nuts. Reached into the cop car and started punching the cop. which is what occurred... absolutely nothing else is remotely probably... none of what we've seen in the last six months would have happened.

No one on Rebkell's is so intellectual deficient as to believe that the cop tried to pull Michael Brown into his vehicle. Certainly not you, Tony.


"Accomplice" and "brainless"? What makes you think the friend was EITHER of these? He most certainly was NOT an accomplice. I assume you are talking about the cigars. The friend didn't steal anything. Brown handed him some cigars, and he put them back on the counter before they left the store. Probably why he hasn't been charged nor arrested. I don't have any information to assess his mental capacity. Do you?

Okay, jammer YOU sit in the driver's seat of an SUV. You first order the two to get outta the middle of the street. Have you actually looked at this street? This was a small drive through what looks like public housing. It was NOT a major road. NOBODY went to the cross walks to cross the street. You realize two people fit the description of a recent cigar theft (that wasn't the initial story as told by the police chief, but was Wilson's story by the time of the GJ), so you do a batman maneuver and pull you vehicle right right next to them - gotta get those cigars. YOU put yourself in Brown's position. You are next to the driver side window and see the officer draw his gun. You might reach through the window and tussle with the officer over the gun. There are logical scenarios to support either version.

Then Brown moves away and Wilson gets out of his vehicle. Makes perfect sense to me that Brown would turn and charge an armed officer like a bull. Yeah, that makes sense to me. Makes sense that I'd shoot him 6 times.

If you read the story I posted MULTIPLE witnesses said Brown was trying o pull away while MULTIPLE witnesses say he was the aggressor. YOU have decided the one version is FACT, and that somehow the forensics corroborate that.

I don't know if Wilson was guilty or innocent. THAT's what a trail where the testimony and evidence was presented by one side and challenged by the other would have come in.

It was clear from the beginning that this prosecutor DID NOT want to charge this police officer. He first punted to a Grand Jury to get it off of his office. Then in the Grand Jury his office pretty much presented the evidence in an exculpatory way with NO ONE to make an alternative case. Of course the GJ didn't indict. There was no adversarial review of testimony or evidence - only what the prosecutor presented. That's not unusual. But generally the prosecutor is presenting evidence to support an indictment (hence his title). This persecutor acted as a defense attorney.

This whole thing could have been avoided if a special prosecutor had been appointed who then determined if there was enough evidence to indict. why a special prosecutor? Because there was enough public distrust in the system and this particular prosecutors ties to the local PD, that anyone could have predicted this outcome. So there's lots of blame for the this reaction.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11237
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/28/14 9:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This question--obviously too late--I haven't heard yet: WHAT, exactly, would a trial accomplish? I mean, it *sounds* like a righteous thing to do, but as entrenched as opinions are NOW, how would a trial change things? Those who "know" the officer is guilty would not change their minds....would they? Those who "know" the officer is innocent wouldn't change their minds....would they? It would only drag the process for so many more weeks and months. And anger would only intensify.

Obviously, Due Process must remain the goal. But sometimes, it seems like due process is not even possible in such emotionally charged cases.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/28/14 9:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
This question--obviously too late--I haven't heard yet: WHAT, exactly, would a trial accomplish? I mean, it *sounds* like a righteous thing to do, but as entrenched as opinions are NOW, how would a trial change things? .


A not guilty verdict from a trail might just meet with the same results. But the message now is that Mike Brown's death didn't even warrant a trial. JMO, there just seems to me to be enough conflicting testimony, that it should have been sorted out during a trial.

Let me add - there are protest, and then there are riots and looting. They are two different things. The rioters and looters are opportunistic criminals and should be arrested and charged. Don't lump them in with protesters.


<iframe src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_lw_Eremis_141126_397271' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></iframe>


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/28/14 1:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
Howee wrote:
This question--obviously too late--I haven't heard yet: WHAT, exactly, would a trial accomplish? I mean, it *sounds* like a righteous thing to do, but as entrenched as opinions are NOW, how would a trial change things? .


A not guilty verdict from a trail might just meet with the same results. But the message now is that Mike Brown's death didn't even warrant a trial. JMO, there just seems to me to be enough conflicting testimony, that it should have been sorted out during a trial.

Let me add - there are protest, and then there are riots and looting. They are two different things. The rioters and looters are opportunistic criminals and should be arrested and charged. Don't lump them in with protesters.


<iframe src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_lw_Eremis_141126_397271' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></iframe>


Well said, on both points, and I'm particularly glad you mentioned the second one. The overwhelming majority of people out in the streets of Ferguson after the announcement were peaceful. Heck, there may well have been more people coming out to clean up the mess caused by the looters, etc. than actual looters. Don't confuse the two groups.

I would add that people see a trial differently than the grand jury/charging phase. For one thing, in a trial the testimony is in public and you can see what's happening - does the prosecutor pull his punches, are the witnesses credible, what exactly did the forensics say, etc., etc. Here, a lot of people are seeing this for what it was, which was an attempt to create the impression that there was nothing the prosecutor could do, when he actually controlled the whole thing. There was no widespread unrest after the George Zimmerman verdict, despite the great disappointment in the black community. I think it's quite possible that there wouldn't have been such a severe reaction after a Darren Wilson trial, even if he'd been acquitted.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8980



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/28/14 9:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<embed><iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MZiegNiE6f0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MZiegNiE6f0


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8980



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/29/14 12:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote



Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8980



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/29/14 12:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote



Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8980



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/29/14 9:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote


Quote:
"He asked Devonte why he was crying. His response about his concerns regarding the level of police brutality towards young black kids was met with an unexpected and seemingly authentic (to Devonte), 'Yes. *sigh* I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.' The officer then asked if he could have one of his hugs," Hart wrote, according to the Oregonian.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/29/living/ferguson-protest-hug/index.html?hpt=hp_c3


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11237
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/30/14 12:18 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

^^ I saw that on the NBC world news the other night ^^

Very poignant picture. And it helps me remember that, while ONE Travon and ONE James are way too many, I still have faith that the VAST majority of cops--black white brown yellow whatever--have good hearts and honest souls.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5121
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/30/14 12:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
^^ I saw that on the NBC world news the other night ^^

Very poignant picture. And it helps me remember that, while ONE Travon and ONE James are way too many, I still have faith that the VAST majority of cops--black white brown yellow whatever--have good hearts and honest souls.


I would love to believe that too Howee but the thing that makes me question it is what are those good hearted and honest souls doing while their bad hearted and dishonest souled brethren are committing heinous acts?
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57581
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/16/14 4:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236

Quote:
The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication,”



_________________
Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10943
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/17/14 9:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236

Quote:
The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication,”



Sandra McElroy did not provide police with a contemporaneous account of the Brown-Wilson confrontation, which she claimed to have watched unfold in front of her as she stood on a nearby sidewalk smoking a cigarette.

Instead, McElroy (seen at left) waited four weeks after the shooting to contact cops. By the time she gave St. Louis police a statement on September 11, a general outline of Wilson’s version of the shooting had already appeared in the press. McElroy’s account of the confrontation dovetailed with Wilson’s reported recollection of the incident.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
MT_Swoopes



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1840



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/14 9:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote



Quote:
“I thought it was much more important to present anybody and everybody,” McCulloch said, “and some, yes, clearly were not telling the truth, no question about it."


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/prosecutor-admits-witnesses-likely-lied-under-oath-michael-brown-case


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/14 7:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There's just no excuse for this. If he thought she "clearly wasn't present," then he is giving the grand jury false information. That's completely irresponsible.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57581
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/14 7:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
There's just no excuse for this. If he thought she "clearly wasn't present," then he is giving the grand jury false information. That's completely irresponsible.


Can he face some sort of professional misconduct penalty for it?



_________________
Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/14 10:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
beknighted wrote:
There's just no excuse for this. If he thought she "clearly wasn't present," then he is giving the grand jury false information. That's completely irresponsible.


Can he face some sort of professional misconduct penalty for it?


In theory, yes. In practice, highly unlikely.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin