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  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5050
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 12:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Let's take a look at the damage this "violent criminal" did to the officer in question...







Perhaps the police need to learn the value of a proportional response...


From the images there seems to be no purple discoloration due blunt force trauma. I don't see bruises. I appears, IMO, to be a flushed face and neck consistent with heightened adrenaline. Maybe its the lighting. I'm not a doctor so my observations mean squat other than an opinion. But in my mind it does raise red flags.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6575
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

hyperetic wrote:
From the images there seems to be no purple discoloration due blunt force trauma. I don't see bruises. I appears, IMO, to be a flushed face and neck consistent with heightened adrenaline. Maybe its the lighting. I'm not a doctor so my observations mean squat other than an opinion. But in my mind it does raise red flags.

I just asked my M.D. friend about what she sees in these pictures. She gave a long explanation, but it boils down to the injuries being consistent with a confined space struggle. She said it was not what you would see from a full on vicious beating, but rather what you might expect from an intense wrestling match.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8518



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote


Quote:
“The Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown is a miscarriage of justice. It is a slap in the face to Americans nationwide who continue to hope and believe that justice will prevail,” Chairwoman Marcia Fudge posted Monday night on the group’s Facebook page. “This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that black lives hold no value; that you may kill black men in this country without consequences or repercussions.”


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressional-black-caucus-no-indictment-slap-the-face-americans


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6575
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:
Quote:
“The Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown is a miscarriage of justice. It is a slap in the face to Americans nationwide who continue to hope and believe that justice will prevail,” Chairwoman Marcia Fudge posted Monday night on the group’s Facebook page. “This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that black lives hold no value; that you may kill black men in this country without consequences or repercussions.”


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressional-black-caucus-no-indictment-slap-the-face-americans

This was posted by her before the grand jury evidence was even released. In other words, she arrived by this "miscarriage of justice" conclusion without actually weighing the evidence. That seems pretty unfair to this Grand Jury, and seems to defy logic.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8518



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
This was posted by her before the grand jury evidence was even released. In other words, she arrived by this "miscarriage of justice" conclusion without actually weighing the evidence. That seems pretty unfair to this Grand Jury, and seems to defy logic.


I'm posting this article in this thread, because it relates to the topic. I am in no way shape or form posting this article to warrant a response from anyone, because I will be really cruel with my words if I bothered to have a discussion with you or Jammerbirdi on this topic.

You have a right to your view (as does anyone else). Just don't feel the need to address me, because I'm not going to address you with respect to any topic regarding race.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Lest we forget, it's pretty much beyond dispute that the entire incident began when Wilson decided he needed to order Brown and his friend not to walk in the street.


Oh no. It's not beyond dispute. Lest we forget, the entire incident began with a strong arm convenience store robbery twenty minutes earlier by Michael Brown. Shocked


Not sure how that is related to the shooting, given that the killer cop had no way of knowing the alleged robbery had even occurred, let alone that Brown might have been involved.


While that was widely reported as fact for many long months we learned yesterday that it was not the case. Officer Wilson actually heard two reports on his radio of the convenience store robbery in the twenty minute span from the robbery to his shooting of Brown. First was while he was attending to a child in distress call and the second, which contained a description of the perpetrators matching Michael Brown, as well as the item taken from the store, cigarillos (which Officer Wilson said he saw in Michael Brown's hand) came through on his radio in the police vehicle.

I don't know what else to say here. Shocked


Leaving aside that there does not appear to by any contemporaneous evidence corroborating the officer's claims about hearing the radio calls (like, say, the original police report), there has been no dispute that he had not identified Brown as the alleged perpetrator of the robbery when he first stopped them.

And I'm going to say this just one more time: My comments way at the top of this thread had to do with a hypothetical situation in which, yes, the obligations of a police officer are exactly the same as for anyone else. If there is no risk, you are not permitted to fire the gun again. This is unambiguously true for everyone, even for violent felons. Put differently, the police don't get free rein to shoot people who have been violent in the past; their immunity extends only to situations in which they reasonably perceive that there is a real possibility of danger. This is not pie-in-the-sky, airy theorizing about what police should do in a perfect world. This is what they're obligated to do.

Also, one comment on the use of the grand jury process here. I am fairly convinced that the prosecutor was using the process as a shield, not to come out to a fair result. The reports I've seen indicate that the grand jury was shown everything, including a bunch of material that is fairly described as useless garbage, and that he made no recommendation or even made an effort to point them towards potential charges. That's not how grand juries actually work in practice - they're guided by the prosecutor, who after all is the expert in the room, and who does not present cases unless the intent is to get an indictment. (My dad sat on a grand jury, and it apparently was a huge shock to the prosecutor when they refused to indict somebody once during his months-long term.) I'm not saying the result was wrong, just that it was entirely predictable based on the process that was used, and that the prosecutor got exactly what he expected and wanted out of it.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6575
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressional-black-caucus-no-indictment-slap-the-face-americans

Quote:
This was posted by her before the grand jury evidence was even released. In other words, she arrived by this "miscarriage of justice" conclusion without actually weighing the evidence. That seems pretty unfair to this Grand Jury, and seems to defy logic.


I'm posting this article in this thread, because it relates to the topic. I am in no way shape or form posting this article to warrant a response from anyone, because I will be really cruel with my words if I bothered to have a discussion with you or Jammerbirdi on this topic.

You have a right to your view (as does anyone else). Just don't feel the need to address me, because I'm not going to address you with respect to any topic regarding race.

Fair enough.

For what it's worth, I do not disagree with the underlying issue at hand here. I think it is a serious problem in the US. And I understand the frustration against the system, and agree that it needs to be changed. I think you and I disagree on the merits of this specific case but I think we agree on the bigger picture. There are too many examples of racial bias within police departments around the country and it has lead to some horribly tragic situations that should never have happened. This culture of antagonism and bias needs to desperately change.

The reason I commented on the article that you posted is that there are 12 individuals who did their civic duty on the grand jury and I think they are being thrown under the bus due to this greater frustration and anger. If people want to break down the actual evidence and show how they feel the jury got it wrong, and explain how and why they would have concluded differently--then that is fine. As you said, everyone is entitled to their own view. But if people are concluding that they were wrong without carefully studying all the evidence, that is extremely unfair to the jury.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.


Last edited by justintyme on 11/25/14 2:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6575
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 2:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
The reports I've seen indicate that the grand jury was shown everything, including a bunch of material that is fairly described as useless garbage, and that he made no recommendation or even made an effort to point them towards potential charges. That's not how grand juries actually work in practice - they're guided by the prosecutor, who after all is the expert in the room, and who does not present cases unless the intent is to get an indictment. (My dad sat on a grand jury, and it apparently was a huge shock to the prosecutor when they refused to indict somebody once during his months-long term.) I'm not saying the result was wrong, just that it was entirely predictable based on the process that was used, and that the prosecutor got exactly what he expected and wanted out of it.

This is not the typical usage of a grand jury, but it is one of the functions that it can be used for. In a normal case, the prosecutor would have likely made his case to a judge and not use the grand jury at all. Clearly, the prosecutor did not feel that there was enough evidence to support an indictment in this case, but due to the high profile didn't want it to look like he was covering anything up. So they used the grand jury as a sort of de facto "civilian oversight board". Instead of one person drawing the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence, he left it up to 12 people of an assortment of genders and races. Because of this, I think he chose to use a hands-off approach where he would not try to influence the jury in either direction. He would give them all the information and let them come to their own decision. This mind-frame is consistent with him releasing all the evidence to the public when typically it would have been sealed.

Was this a shield? Probably. But it was also provided for some transparency and thoroughness. Was it predictable? Well, if he had thought there was enough to prosecute, he would likely have not used the grand jury at all. Since he is, as you noted, the "expert" and would have a good sense of what constitutes "probable cause" it would be logical to assume that a grand jury would draw a similar conclusion. So yeah, predictable but not necessarily wrong.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 2:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
The reports I've seen indicate that the grand jury was shown everything, including a bunch of material that is fairly described as useless garbage, and that he made no recommendation or even made an effort to point them towards potential charges. That's not how grand juries actually work in practice - they're guided by the prosecutor, who after all is the expert in the room, and who does not present cases unless the intent is to get an indictment. (My dad sat on a grand jury, and it apparently was a huge shock to the prosecutor when they refused to indict somebody once during his months-long term.) I'm not saying the result was wrong, just that it was entirely predictable based on the process that was used, and that the prosecutor got exactly what he expected and wanted out of it.

This is not the typical usage of a grand jury, but it is one of the functions that it can be used for. In a normal case, the prosecutor would have likely made his case to a judge and not use the grand jury at all. Clearly, the prosecutor did not feel that there was enough evidence to support an indictment in this case, but due to the high profile didn't want it to look like he was covering anything up. So they used the grand jury as a sort of de facto "civilian oversight board". Instead of one person drawing the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence, he left it up to 12 people of an assortment of genders and races. Because of this, I think he chose to use a hands-off approach where he would not try to influence the jury in either direction. He would give them all the information and let them come to their own decision. This mind-frame is consistent with him releasing all the evidence to the public when typically it would have been sealed.

Was this a shield? Probably. But it was also provided for some transparency and thoroughness. Was it predictable? Well, if he had thought there was enough to prosecute, he would likely have not used the grand jury at all. Since he is, as you noted, the "expert" and would have a good sense of what constitutes "probable cause" it would be logical to assume that a grand jury would draw a similar conclusion. So yeah, predictable but not necessarily wrong.


Short version: He didn't want to take responsibility for not indicting Wilson, so he threw all the evidence at the grand jury, with no guidance, knowing what the result would be.

Again, I'm not saying the result was wrong. What I am saying is that this was a very cynical use of the grand jury process, and extremely unusual (as in, I would bet that you could count the number of times it's been done this way in the U.S. in the last year on the fingers of one hand, and maybe on the the hands of one hand). At best, it was cowardly. At worst, it was a deliberate effort to prevent Wilson from being prosecuted.


hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5050
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 3:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
The medical investigator took no photos

The medical investigator did not take photographs at the scene of Brown's killing because the camera battery had died, the grand jury heard.

The investigator, who goes to the crime scene to collect evidence for the pathologist, also did not take measurements of anything at the scene because they "didn't need to."

The investigator, whose name was redacted, said: "It was self-explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there."

Typically, a medical investigator will take crime scene photos in addition to the ones taken by police investigators.

The investigator testified that they did not see evidence of "stippling" (gunpowder) around the wounds on Brown's body.


From the transcript of Darren Wilson's testimony, http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-documents/index.html

No pictorial evidence. Not completely following crime scene procedure. Not suspicious at all.

Here's a point I would like to make. Michael Brown was not a saint. What he did in the store was wrong and illegal. At most he deserved a good swift kick in the ass or a good punch in the mouth and a small amount of jail time. He did not deserve to have his life taken from him.

Why would you pull up directly beside a strong arm robbery suspect? Wouldn't it be safer and more prudent to stop behind or in front of them?


Last edited by hyperetic on 11/25/14 3:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17818



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 3:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Jammer, "proportional response" is the self defense law. That's not something that you teach a child. That's something that is tried in court.

This was a pathetic decision. But it's also not surprising. And not just because of race issues, but also because it's damn near impossible to hold police officers accountable for anything.

What, exactly, makes it a "pathetic decision"? Are you basing this on the actual evidence that the jury had to weigh? The eye witness testimony and forensics?

How would you have ruled, using the evidence and not some preconceived belief of guilt or innocence?

Having read it all, it seems fairly clear that there was no way for them to indict. The evidence pretty much stood lock-step with the officer's account. Yet I see so many people just discount this jury's desicion out of hand.

This isn't to say there is not a serious problem in the way the police relate with minorities. There are numerous cases which demonstrate this. The frustration in these communities is more than warrented, but there are better examples of this out there than this specific case.


There was easily enough evidence to indict him. Perhaps not enough to find him guilty, but indict. As someone else said, you can indict a ham sandwich. There was enough to satisfy probable cause, which is actually a relatively low burden.

And it's pathetic, because as was pointed out, the Prosecutor led the proceedings in a way that it was evident that this case was about to be dropped. Not only that, but realistically, this was a racial case..and there just so happened to be enough white people on the jury to not indict him.

BTW: the standard for police officers when using deadly force is "objective reasonableness" ..which is really not all that different from proportionality. A person has to pose a significant threat of death or severe injury in order for an officer to use deadly force. Being that the child was unarmed...



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5050
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 3:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One thing I am frustrated about is that in this day and age when all the ridiculous minutia of our lives are photographed, videotaped, vine'd, Instagramed, Snapchatted, etc., nobody, NOBODY, recorded this?
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19312



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 3:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

hyperetic wrote:
One thing I am frustrated about is that in this day and age when all the ridiculous minutia of our lives are photographed, videotaped, vine'd, Instagramed, Snapchatted, etc., nobody, NOBODY, recorded this?


Agreed. But the police especially should wear body cameras as the Brown family is calling for.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55133
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 4:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
hyperetic wrote:
One thing I am frustrated about is that in this day and age when all the ridiculous minutia of our lives are photographed, videotaped, vine'd, Instagramed, Snapchatted, etc., nobody, NOBODY, recorded this?


Agreed. But the police especially should wear body cameras as the Brown family is calling for.


The Ferguson PD chose to purchase a tank instead of cameras...



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19312



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 4:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
hyperetic wrote:
One thing I am frustrated about is that in this day and age when all the ridiculous minutia of our lives are photographed, videotaped, vine'd, Instagramed, Snapchatted, etc., nobody, NOBODY, recorded this?


Agreed. But the police especially should wear body cameras as the Brown family is calling for.


The Ferguson PD chose to purchase a tank instead of cameras...


Well there's a-one thing right there. The police shouldn't get to choose. The people should. This is but one thing that needs to be fixed in the United States in a long list. What we need is an FDR-like call to action by a president to mobilize the people around the greater longer list of efforts to fix our country. People who wanted to be police officers in a small town, which is to say almost by default, working class individuals, should not, by themselves, be allowed to decide they're going to spend the taxpayer's money on a tank. But the US government or other contractors shouldn't even be in the business of offloading their combat inventory on small town police forces but that's a whole 'nuther issue.

I screamed on my website 14 years ago that the police should not be making the rules for us... we should be making the rules for them.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19312



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 5:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Being that the child was unarmed...


OMG no you didn't say that. Wow. That's about the most disingenuous and manipulative thing I've heard said by anyone so far anywhere.

I am OUT. Rolling Eyes


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8941
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd be effed up


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 8:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

in 2010, US attorneys prosecuted 162,000 FEDERAL cases. Grand jury declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

99.99%.

I just saw the guy who was w/ Brown interviewed, this morning, by Chris Hayes at the scene of the crime.

His testimony alone is enough to indict Wilson.

Brown, hardly an unarmed "child", was at least a petty thief bully, standing 6'4 and weighing 280.

His death hardly seems justified.

I hope the Feds do something.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8518



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 9:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Fair enough.

For what it's worth, I do not disagree with the underlying issue at hand here. I think it is a serious problem in the US. And I understand the frustration against the system, and agree that it needs to be changed. I think you and I disagree on the merits of this specific case but I think we agree on the bigger picture. There are too many examples of racial bias within police departments around the country and it has lead to some horribly tragic situations that should never have happened. This culture of antagonism and bias needs to desperately change.

The reason I commented on the article that you posted is that there are 12 individuals who did their civic duty on the grand jury and I think they are being thrown under the bus due to this greater frustration and anger. If people want to break down the actual evidence and show how they feel the jury got it wrong, and explain how and why they would have concluded differently--then that is fine. As you said, everyone is entitled to their own view. But if people are concluding that they were wrong without carefully studying all the evidence, that is extremely unfair to the jury.


I'm not trying to be rude to you or anyone. This topic is just too painful for me right now.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8518



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 9:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote












Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10741
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 11:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As frustrated as this turn of events must be for the people of Ferguson, I cannotCANNOT fathom ONE thing: Why do people LOOT in response to this? How does looting make up for anything, or make things *better*??

Yet another very sad day in American History.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
As frustrated as this turn of events must be for the people of Ferguson, I cannotCANNOT fathom ONE thing: Why do people LOOT in response to this? How does looting make up for anything, or make things *better*??

Yet another very sad day in American History.


Angry people do stupid things. And some people use the protests as cover for criminal acts, too.

It does seem to me that the overwhelming majority of the protesters have been peaceful. Mad, yes, but peaceful.


hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5050
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
As frustrated as this turn of events must be for the people of Ferguson, I cannotCANNOT fathom ONE thing: Why do people LOOT in response to this? How does looting make up for anything, or make things *better*??

Yet another very sad day in American History.


For some, they feel its the only way they can exact some kind of revenge on those they think wronged them. Granted those ones are not thinking it through fully because their actions really only hurt them in the long run. For others, they are not true protesters. They are just opportunists looking for a chance to steal and destroy.
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9715



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

via Deadspin:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MQs7CWKHM9w?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17818



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 1:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Being that the child was unarmed...


OMG no you didn't say that. Wow. That's about the most disingenuous and manipulative thing I've heard said by anyone so far anywhere.

I am OUT. Rolling Eyes


What exactly was wrong about that.

Sorry. Did I put it in perspective for you? You've been calling the kid (Yes..the kid) a violent criminal throughout the thread. Talk about being disingenuous.

BTW: apparently the KKK has been running around Ferguson. Haven't seen them on the news much though.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
smenko



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 4079
Location: metro detroit


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 1:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The situation of looting is also has an ambiguity attached to how it is defined: main street sees protesters heading in its direction throwing rocks and burning police cars you know you place of business is in trouble; Wall Street and banks loot the public all the time and everyone looks the other way.

Honestly, there is no amicable resolution until all parties agree to sit down at a table and tell their stories.

If South Africa could get rid of the hold that the white government held and come to a resolution why can't we?


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8941
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd be effed up


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 9:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Being that the child was unarmed...


OMG no you didn't say that. Wow. That's about the most disingenuous and manipulative thing I've heard said by anyone so far anywhere.

I am OUT. Rolling Eyes


What exactly was wrong about that.

Sorry. Did I put it in perspective for you? You've been calling the kid (Yes..the kid) a violent criminal throughout the thread. Talk about being disingenuous.


BTW: apparently the KKK has been running around Ferguson. Haven't seen them on the news much though.



While I'm clearly not on the side jammer seems to be, his description of Brown, while antagonistic, is at least as accurate- and it can be argued that it is more so- than your "unarmed child".

Brown is 18. He is a young man, figuratively and legally. He is a very large young man. He robbed a store and bullied, w/ his overwhelming physical size, the store owner. That makes him violent, and a petty thief in my mind. And, a punk.

I have argued here before, many times, re: what I view as outrageous police action/overreaction, much of it race-motivated. The recent militaristic-style build-up of local police forces is a bad, bad thing imo. (It coincides w/ the recent "thank you for your service" worship of all people military/"war on terrorism" fear-mongering, imo, but that's another discussion).

Brown, as much as I can be sure, as much of an asshole I think he was, should not have been killed. The cop, as much as I can be sure, is the ultimate asshole for allowing/causing the escalation and, obviously, causing Brown's death.

The prosecutor is the scumbag icing on this uniquely American, forked-up cake.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16351
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 11:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

i wouldn't say it's uniquely american.



_________________
no justice, no peace.
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4414



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 11:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

An article about NO Saints player Benjamin Watson's Facebook post. The post is linked in the article. Very interesting post.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/benjamin-watson-new-orleans-saints-te-has-ferguson-facebook-message-go-viral-1.9655172


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17818



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 11:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Being that the child was unarmed...


OMG no you didn't say that. Wow. That's about the most disingenuous and manipulative thing I've heard said by anyone so far anywhere.

I am OUT. Rolling Eyes


What exactly was wrong about that.

Sorry. Did I put it in perspective for you? You've been calling the kid (Yes..the kid) a violent criminal throughout the thread. Talk about being disingenuous.


BTW: apparently the KKK has been running around Ferguson. Haven't seen them on the news much though.



While I'm clearly not on the side jammer seems to be, his description of Brown, while antagonistic, is at least as accurate- and it can be argued that it is more so- than your "unarmed child".

Brown is 18. He is a young man, figuratively and legally. He is a very large young man. He robbed a store and bullied, w/ his overwhelming physical size, the store owner. That makes him violent, and a petty thief in my mind. And, a punk.

I have argued here before, many times, re: what I view as outrageous police action/overreaction, much of it race-motivated. The recent militaristic-style build-up of local police forces is a bad, bad thing imo. (It coincides w/ the recent "thank you for your service" worship of all people military/"war on terrorism" fear-mongering, imo, but that's another discussion).

Brown, as much as I can be sure, as much of an asshole I think he was, should not have been killed. The cop, as much as I can be sure, is the ultimate asshole for allowing/causing the escalation and, obviously, causing Brown's death.

The prosecutor is the scumbag icing on this uniquely American, forked-up cake.


He was a high school student, days before he was killed. That's a child to me. I don't care if he was a big kid. I don't care if he was an asshole kid (how many 18 year old boys are assholes? So..so..many..). He was a recent high school graduate. That's a kid.

We have no problem calling the white high school boys, who rape and film their classmates, kids. (And we also like to talk about how sad it is that they get in trouble. That they had such a bright future. And it's too bad they'll have to miss the football season.) We have no problem labeling the white college guys who shoot up their colleges kids. (Obviously it wasn't their fault, they are sick.)

Language is important. Call the victim what he was.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4414



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 11:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Being that the child was unarmed...


OMG no you didn't say that. Wow. That's about the most disingenuous and manipulative thing I've heard said by anyone so far anywhere.

I am OUT. Rolling Eyes


What exactly was wrong about that.

Sorry. Did I put it in perspective for you? You've been calling the kid (Yes..the kid) a violent criminal throughout the thread. Talk about being disingenuous.


BTW: apparently the KKK has been running around Ferguson. Haven't seen them on the news much though.



While I'm clearly not on the side jammer seems to be, his description of Brown, while antagonistic, is at least as accurate- and it can be argued that it is more so- than your "unarmed child".

Brown is 18. He is a young man, figuratively and legally. He is a very large young man. He robbed a store and bullied, w/ his overwhelming physical size, the store owner. That makes him violent, and a petty thief in my mind. And, a punk.

I have argued here before, many times, re: what I view as outrageous police action/overreaction, much of it race-motivated. The recent militaristic-style build-up of local police forces is a bad, bad thing imo. (It coincides w/ the recent "thank you for your service" worship of all people military/"war on terrorism" fear-mongering, imo, but that's another discussion).

Brown, as much as I can be sure, as much of an asshole I think he was, should not have been killed. The cop, as much as I can be sure, is the ultimate asshole for allowing/causing the escalation and, obviously, causing Brown's death.

The prosecutor is the scumbag icing on this uniquely American, forked-up cake.


He was a high school student, days before he was killed. That's a child to me. I don't care if he was a big kid. I don't care if he was an asshole kid (how many 18 year old boys are assholes? So..so..many..). He was a recent high school graduate. That's a kid.

We have no problem calling the white high school boys, who rape and film their classmates, kids. (And we also like to talk about how sad it is that they get in trouble. That they had such a bright future. And it's too bad they'll have to miss the football season.) We have no problem labeling the white college guys who shoot up their colleges kids. (Obviously it wasn't their fault, they are sick.)

Language is important. Call the victim what he was.


FWIW, HS teams around here are called "men's XXXXXX team" and "women's XXXXXX team.
"


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6575
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 11:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
An article about NO Saints player Benjamin Watson's Facebook post. The post is linked in the article. Very interesting post.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/benjamin-watson-new-orleans-saints-te-has-ferguson-facebook-message-go-viral-1.9655172

Excellent post. He sums up perfectly the situation as I see it. This is the type of constructive argument that needs to be heard more.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8941
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd be effed up


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Being that the child was unarmed...


OMG no you didn't say that. Wow. That's about the most disingenuous and manipulative thing I've heard said by anyone so far anywhere.

I am OUT. Rolling Eyes


What exactly was wrong about that.

Sorry. Did I put it in perspective for you? You've been calling the kid (Yes..the kid) a violent criminal throughout the thread. Talk about being disingenuous.


BTW: apparently the KKK has been running around Ferguson. Haven't seen them on the news much though.



While I'm clearly not on the side jammer seems to be, his description of Brown, while antagonistic, is at least as accurate- and it can be argued that it is more so- than your "unarmed child".

Brown is 18. He is a young man, figuratively and legally. He is a very large young man. He robbed a store and bullied, w/ his overwhelming physical size, the store owner. That makes him violent, and a petty thief in my mind. And, a punk.

I have argued here before, many times, re: what I view as outrageous police action/overreaction, much of it race-motivated. The recent militaristic-style build-up of local police forces is a bad, bad thing imo. (It coincides w/ the recent "thank you for your service" worship of all people military/"war on terrorism" fear-mongering, imo, but that's another discussion).

Brown, as much as I can be sure, as much of an asshole I think he was, should not have been killed. The cop, as much as I can be sure, is the ultimate asshole for allowing/causing the escalation and, obviously, causing Brown's death.

The prosecutor is the scumbag icing on this uniquely American, forked-up cake.


He was a high school student, days before he was killed. That's a child to me. I don't care if he was a big kid. I don't care if he was an asshole kid (how many 18 year old boys are assholes? So..so..many..). He was a recent high school graduate. That's a kid.

We have no problem calling the white high school boys, who rape and film their classmates, kids. (And we also like to talk about how sad it is that they get in trouble. That they had such a bright future. And it's too bad they'll have to miss the football season.) We have no problem labeling the white college guys who shoot up their colleges kids. (Obviously it wasn't their fault, they are sick.)

Language is important. Call the victim what he was.



I'm pretty sure I suggested that, to the best of my knowledge, Brown was a victim of an over-reactive, racist police action.

Agree re: language- Brown was an 18-yr old, college-bound petty thief/bully. What part of that language isn't true, exactly?

And just because he was, doesn't mean he (so obvious, don't know why I have to say it) deserved to be killed. Or that his death is less tragic. Or that his life is less valuable.

As for the white boys you mention- i have no idea what YOU called them, and you are equally ignorant of my description of them. Smile



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8941
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd be effed up


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sambista wrote:
i wouldn't say it's uniquely american.



Ok, I didn't realize there's another country suffering the same karma descended from a 16-19th century slave system.

Where else does this shit happen for that reason?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55133
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
sambista wrote:
i wouldn't say it's uniquely american.



Ok, I didn't realize there's another country suffering the same karma descended from a 16-19th century slave system.

Where else does this shit happen for that reason?


Almost all western countries held and traded slaves in the 16th-19th century. That much is certainly not uniquely American.



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10741
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
sambista wrote:
i wouldn't say it's uniquely american.


Ok, I didn't realize there's another country suffering the same karma descended from a 16-19th century slave system.

Where else does this shit happen for that reason?


Time Frames and systems are less relevant than the pervasive culture of One Class/Race Above The Rest. See: India (caste system) Latin American/Caribbean Cultures (slave systems), Ancient Rome, et. al.

The only unique part is that this is *our* experience. And as dismal as it seems, I still say *our* time and setting offers more actual hope for reform than in some of those places named above.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19312



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 1:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:


Language is important. Call the victim what he was.


Shocked Yes. Of course. What was I thinking? He was a child.



And when the police confront criminals on society's behalf, and those criminals violently attack those same police and reach into their vehicles and punch them in the face with 6'6" and 300 lbs of might, threatening a takeover of the weaponry of the police, let's remember how important language really is and call those criminals what they are.

Victims.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6575
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:


Language is important. Call the victim what he was.


Shocked Yes. Of course. What was I thinking? He was a child.

And when the police confront criminals on society's behalf, and those criminals violently attack those same police and reach into their vehicles and punch them in the face with 6'6" and 300 lbs of might, threatening a takeover of the weaponry of the police, let's remember how important language really is and call those criminals what they are.

Victims.


As with most labels, it is possible he is both and neither simultaneously. No label is ever perfect as people are not objects. People are not consistently one thing or another. And most importantly, people are different things to different people. To say one is right and one is wrong is problematic.



What labels would you use for the guy in the first picture, and what would you use for the one in the second? This is why trying to say someone "is" something pretty much sucks all around.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6575
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 2:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:

There was easily enough evidence to indict him. Perhaps not enough to find him guilty, but indict. As someone else said, you can indict a ham sandwich. There was enough to satisfy probable cause, which is actually a relatively low burden.

And it's pathetic, because as was pointed out, the Prosecutor led the proceedings in a way that it was evident that this case was about to be dropped. Not only that, but realistically, this was a racial case..and there just so happened to be enough white people on the jury to not indict him.


In a normal setting, this never gets to the grand jury. The prosecutor would look at the totality of the evidence involved and then use his or her own discretion on whether or not they felt that there was:

1. Probable cause that a crime had been committed
2. A reasonable chance of conviction

The reason for that "ham sandwich" statement is because by the time they get to the grand jury a prosecutor has already weeded out the cases of no probable cause. They then just present the evidence that supports their case and leave out anything detrimental.

Due to the sensitive nature of this subject, there was an attempt at transparency. Instead of the prosecutor deciding on his own that there was no probable cause he turned it over to the jury. They got to weigh all the evidence that he would normally weigh in making that decision. They ended up agreeing with his take on it.

I keep hearing that the prosecutor is supposed to be an "agent for the victim". That is not true at all. He is supposed to be an agent for justice. We don't want prosecutors railroading people who they don't honestly feel are guilty. So here he took a hands off approach. A cynic might call him a coward who wanted to cover his behind. Someone with more faith in humanity might say he was a decent person who wanted to make sure that he was making the correct decision so he allowed 12 people to draw their own conclusions. I am not in his head, and I don't know him personally, so I cannot say which one it was.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
TonyL222



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 2:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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. Justice Anthony Scalia, 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams.

Wilson testified for hours in his own defense. The St. Louis prosecutor said the GJ weighed the testimony of eye witnesses against exculpatory witness accounts and the forensic evidence. None of that should have happened. All of that should have occurred during a trial.

This prosecutor did not want to have his officer bring charges against and have to prosecute this police officer.


sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16351
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 4:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
sambista wrote:
i wouldn't say it's uniquely american.



Ok, I didn't realize there's another country suffering the same karma descended from a 16-19th century slave system.

Where else does this shit happen for that reason?


well, brasil, for one, though i'm sure there are others. save for a few variances, the fundamental engines of racism and classism are here. remember, brasil was the last major country where slavery was abolished, 23 years after the u.s. brasil feels like 1980s america to me in that sense. it's been only about 10 years since a law abolishing "elevator apartheid" was enacted, allowing blacks (and maids, black or otherwise) to use the "social" elevators instead of the service elevators. i remember coming here in the '90s and being automatically directed to the rear of hotels, well-dressed as i was, though i politely begged to differ and was allowed normal passage once it became clear i was american.

there's a song here that talks about black people, and poor people, and poor amounting to being black. in the favelas, people are shot first, with no intention of asking questions later. in fact, some just disappear. on the street, if you wear the "wrong" clothes, assumptions are made.

and that military gear ferguson police marched out with? hell, that's standard issue here. i was crossing the street at the beach one quiet sunday, and a police officer was waving his (semiautomatic?) rifle at me and others, and all he was doing was directing traffic and pedestrians! i was shocked, frightened and stunned. there was no incident or disturbance. but he was decked out as if for war on a sunny sunday at the beach. standard issue. now, it just so happened that there were quite a few black people getting off a bus . . .

and let's talk about europe for a second. i'm not into soccer, but i sure did hear about and see the banana thrown on the field at the dark-skinned player. and the banners the players held up at the beginning of games and the tv spots during the world cup imploring "no racism." does it matter that europe's anguish is about immigrants? no. different words, same story.



_________________
no justice, no peace.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8941
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd be effed up


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 4:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
sambista wrote:
i wouldn't say it's uniquely american.



Ok, I didn't realize there's another country suffering the same karma descended from a 16-19th century slave system.

Where else does this shit happen for that reason?


Almost all western countries held and traded slaves in the 16th-19th century. That much is certainly not uniquely American.


That much I was aware of, as well as "the darker-the-skin-the-lower-the-class" reality in this hemisphere.

I guess the uniqueness is the bullshit rhetoric vs the despicable reality?

But, I will retract. Cool



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 7:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Due to the sensitive nature of this subject, there was an attempt at transparency. Instead of the prosecutor deciding on his own that there was no probable cause he turned it over to the jury. They got to weigh all the evidence that he would normally weigh in making that decision. They ended up agreeing with his take on it.


The more I read about the grand jury proceedings, the less I think this is true. It appears that his questioning of Wilson was pretty darned gentle, and often led to answers that would help Wilson. (For instance, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Did you have a reasonable fear for your life?") There was very little follow-up when Wilson's testimony was inconsistent with physical evidence, such as the distance between the car and where Brown was when he died. Other witnesses who were more inclined to say things that would have supported an indictment got much more severe treatment, more or less like cross examination.

All of this is consistent with my view that the goal of the grand jury proceeding was *not* transparency at all, but instead was to protect the prosecutor from criticism that he didn't charge Wilson. That doesn't mean that Wilson should have been charged, but it does mean that, to quote a Facebook friend of mine, the prosecutor was a pompous doofus (or worse).


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8518



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 9:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote










p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9715



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 9:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
All of this is consistent with my view that the goal of the grand jury proceeding was *not* transparency at all, but instead was to protect the prosecutor from criticism that he didn't charge Wilson. That doesn't mean that Wilson should have been charged, but it does mean that, to quote a Facebook friend of mine, the prosecutor was a pompous doofus (or worse).

"Right from the beginning, when Governor Jay Nixon refused to name a special prosecutor and left the case in the hands of Bob McCulloch, the greasy and hopelessly conflicted local district attorney, this case was headed for the biggest public fix since the 1919 World Series."

-- Pierce


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 10:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

p_d_swanson wrote:
beknighted wrote:
All of this is consistent with my view that the goal of the grand jury proceeding was *not* transparency at all, but instead was to protect the prosecutor from criticism that he didn't charge Wilson. That doesn't mean that Wilson should have been charged, but it does mean that, to quote a Facebook friend of mine, the prosecutor was a pompous doofus (or worse).

"Right from the beginning, when Governor Jay Nixon refused to name a special prosecutor and left the case in the hands of Bob McCulloch, the greasy and hopelessly conflicted local district attorney, this case was headed for the biggest public fix since the 1919 World Series."

-- Pierce


Charles Pierce is a treasure.


Barrister15



Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 4263
Location: New York, NY


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 11:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.

People of color have every right to be angry. With every Mike Brown. With every Ramarley Graham. With every Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Kimane Gray. With every Akai Gurley. With every unarmed black male felled by a police officer's bullet, that anger grows and grows and grows. If you're not angry about this, you're not paying attention.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 12:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Barrister15 wrote:
People of color have every right to be angry. With every Mike Brown. With every Ramarley Graham. With every Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Kimane Gray. With every Akai Gurley. With every unarmed black male felled by a police officer's bullet, that anger grows and grows and grows. If you're not angry about this, you're not paying attention.


And yet every incident is deemed to be individual and separate by some people, as if there isn't a pattern. (Speaking of which, I just read today, in a Straight Dope column about whether particular ethnic groups drive better or worse than others [no], that blacks get stopped much more often by the police than whites, but also get let go without a ticket or arrest much more often. Sounds like cops going fishing to me.)


Barrister15



Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 4263
Location: New York, NY


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

beknighted wrote:

And yet every incident is deemed to be individual and separate by some people, as if there isn't a pattern. (Speaking of which, I just read today, in a Straight Dope column about whether particular ethnic groups drive better or worse than others [no], that blacks get stopped much more often by the police than whites, but also get let go without a ticket or arrest much more often. Sounds like cops going fishing to me.)


Driving while black. It's like an automotive version of stop and frisk.

When you consider how many unarmed people of color suspected of committing low level offenses are killed by the police, while armed whites who are suspected of committing heinous acts of violence are taken into custody alive, how can there not be some sort of pattern? If Jared Loughner was black, would he be alive and awaiting trial? Or would he have been shot by police the second they had a clear shot?


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19312



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 5:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Barrister15 wrote:


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.


But he didn't get a death sentence. A death sentence is imposed by a court and a jury in criminal cases that society has deemed merit capital punishment.

Mike Brown initiated a violent assault on a police officer while that police officer was seated inside his own vehicle. He repeatedly punched the officer and grabbed at his weapon. A half dozen black eyewitnesses have said so. And during that violent altercation which he initiated he was shot multiple times and died. Given other circumstances that would be almost a written prescription for attempting suicide by cop.

He physically attacked an armed police officer. That is very stupid thing to do. This cop, any cop, is going to fight for his life. A cop is always going to assume one thing, that he's at risk of being killed. They are on guard all the time. They are trained to have in the front of their minds at all time the possibly that a perpetrator might take their own weapons from them and kill them. There is always a gun in the presence of a violent criminal that they're encountering. THEIR gun. This is a tremendous fear throughout the law enforcement community.

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.

20 minutes before he was killed Michael Brown was the bad ass bully terrorizing a convenience store employee (owner) threatening a beat down to a human being half his size. We don't give a SHIT about the humiliation, the emasculation, that that little guy undoubtedly experienced when he couldn't do his job of protecting his store and his inventory from a giant thug.

So he called the cops. Because people aren't supposed to have to live like that. You aren't supposed to have to feel that powerless and that vulnerable in America to a guy just because he's bigger and stronger than you. He doesn't GET to walk into your place of business and just TAKE what he wants. And when you confront him those kinds of individuals don't get to cower you with their hulking physicality.

That's where the police come in. We hope. You call the cops when you have been victimized by such a a piece of shit as this dumb fuck was. And it is hoped (I would hope) by everyone here that the cops would have come to this small business owner's rescue and rounded up these two assholes and charged them with whatever they did. Nothing more and nothing less. It's how we maintain order in this country. And pubic safety.

All the myriad fixes we need in this country to try to right this ship, many involving fixing law enforcement and a broken legal system, we're STILL going to need cops to run down strong arm convenience store robbers who have only snatched a box of cigarillos. Because people need to feel safe and BE safe in their homes and places of business. No exceptions.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19312



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/14 6:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Barrister15 wrote:

People of color have every right to be angry. With every Mike Brown. With every Ramarley Graham. With every Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Kimane Gray. With every Akai Gurley. With every unarmed black male felled by a police officer's bullet, that anger grows and grows and grows. If you're not angry about this, you're not paying attention.


I made a website about a dozen years ago (or more) to publicize questionable killings of black and hispanic people in California. (I think I remember asking some people in this group to visit it.) That's ALL the website was about. The police shooting blacks and hispanics. It doesn't take mere anger to make a website attacking the police and calling them murderers and cowards. It takes FURY.

Point is... my dismay and disgust that all this has been brought about by the shooting of Michael Brown... THIS cop, this guy, this incident... it's NOT because I'm indifferent to this issue in general. On the contrary. This issue used to be at the top of my list. It would be still if not for the country being so incredibly fucked up that this is now just one of dozens of incredibly fucked up problems.


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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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