The Ferguson Indictment (on Justice)

[Nbadan]

Pretty easy to get an indictment, really..



Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.

“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

The Press conference by Ferguson Prosecutor Robert McCulloch really sounded like the closing argument for the defence....disgusting...

[Nbadan]

On the streets of Ferguson..

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bassemmasri

[Nbadan]

Guess it got to late for the the M$M to report live news?

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/goza-live

[spurraider21]

if the prosecution doesn't feel confident that they have a winning case, they aren't going to push for an indictment. the only reason it got as far as it did was the public pressure.

it parallels the zimmerman case, where it was pretty clear the state felt they had no case, but were basically forced by pressure to put him on trial, which ended up with a predictable result.

that being said, the prosecutor's statement today was baffling. based on his own words, i thought a trial seemed appropriate. if the main issues at hand are questions of fact (which is what he implied all along), then that's the literal purpose of a jury trial. i doubt there would have been a conviction anyway, and maybe the decision made today was the correct one, but i think they did a really poor job of describing their reasons not to indict wilson.

[boutons_deux]

?St. Louis prosecutor McCulloch roasted online for indicting everybody but Darren Wilson

St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch (D) was criticize as much on Monday night for the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson as for his 20-minute statement leading up to it.

Instead of immediately announcing that Wilson would not be prosecuted for shooting and killing 18-year-old Michael Brown this past August, McCulloch opened by blaming social media and the media in general for supposedly pushing a distorted narrative of the shooting.

The Huffington Post called McCulloch’s statement “bizarre,” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/24/bob-mcculloch-ferguson_n_6215986.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013 +) while CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin described it as an “extended whine” that was “completely inappropriate.”

"Five Thirty Eight reported (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) that the grand jury’s decision was a statistical rarity; out of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries opted not to indict in just 11 instances."

"only three [of 12] jurors needed to agree that there wasn't enough evidence to charge Wilson"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/st-louis-prosecutor-mcculloch-roasted-online-for-indicting-everybody-but-darren-wilson/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Shooting an unarmed black man was of course the trolling-a-black-neighborhood cop's ONLY course of action, like shooting a12 year old kid with toy gun dead was the only course of action.

But "if he were white ..." :

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/05/gun_nuts_special_privileges_how_police_treated_a_d angerous_open_carry_zealot/

[boutons_deux]

I read the the McCockup allowed Wilson to testify for hours in his own defense.

[DarrinS]

Millions duped by "hands up don't shoot"

[boutons_deux]

Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop

It’s not just Ferguson—here’s how the system protects police.

http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop#

[DarrinS]

Fighting with a cop for his weapon -- not a good idea

[boutons_deux]

Fighting with a cop for his weapon -- not a good idea

white cop trolling a black neighborhood, always a good idea for the cops.

[DarrinS]

white cop trolling a black neighborhood, always a good idea for the cops.

Except when he's responding to a call in that neighborhood

[boutons_deux]

Except when he's responding to a call in that neighborhood

.. had time to harass a couple blacks, I'm sure the cop was respectful, polite, non-inflammatory, to get out of the street.

License To Kill (anybody): USA's militarized, anti-citizen police state. Everybody, and everything they own and do, is suspect. It's The American Way.

[101A]

.. had time to harass a couple blacks, I'm sure the cop was respectful, polite, non-inflammatory, to get out of the street.

License To Kill (anybody): USA's militarized, anti-citizen police state. Everybody, and everything they own and do, is suspect. It's The American Way.

The guys in the street WERE the reason the call was made. Rob a convenience store, get the cops called, battle said cop for his weapon - at what point are you willing to hold Darren Wilson accountable for HIS actions? Ever? What is your solution Boutons? What result do YOU want? Useless bitching is useless.

[DarrinS]

.. had time to harass a couple blacks, I'm sure the cop was respectful, polite, non-inflammatory, to get out of the street.

License To Kill (anybody): USA's militarized, anti-citizen police state. Everybody, and everything they own and do, is suspect. It's The American Way.


Still holding on to false premises, I see

[DarrinS]

The guys in the street WERE the reason the call was made. Rob a convenience store, get the cops called, battle said cop for his weapon - at what point are you willing to hold Darren Wilson accountable for HIS actions? Ever? What is your solution Boutons? What result do YOU want? Useless bitching is useless.


Did you mean MB?

[Yonivore]

Well, this is certainly an appropriate response; burning down minority-owned businesses in the name of Michael Brown. It's probably something he would have done in the name of some other thug, gunned down when attacking an armed police officer.

MOST BUSINESSES DESTROYED IN FERGUSON MINORITY OWNED (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Most-Businesses-Destroyed-in-Ferguson-Minority-Owned)


KMOV-TV reports that the majority of stores that were damaged or completely destroyed during Monday night's violent riots in Ferguson were minority owned. Fire Departments around the St. Louis County Area put out 25 structural fires caused by vandals and looters following the announcement from the grand jury that Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted in the death of Mike Brown.

Is This ‘Justice’? Natalie DuBose’s Cake Store Is Attacked In #Ferguson, Along With Many Other Businesses (http://weaselzippers.us/206269-is-this-justice-natalie-duboses-cake-store-is-attacked-in-ferguson-along-with-many-other-businesses/)

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Screen-Shot-2014-11-25-at-7.23.06-AM-507x650.png

[Spurminator]

Rioters and looters aren't protestors, they're opportunists. Fuck em.

But also LOL at half of America rising up to decry the vandalism of 25 insured properties.

[Yonivore]

Rioters and looters aren't protestors, they're opportunists. Fuck em.

But also LOL at half of America rising up to decry the vandalism of 25 insured properties.
I wonder if Ms. DuBose can meet the deductible.

[Spurminator]

I wonder if Ms. DuBose can meet the deductible.

I'm sure you're legitimately concerned about this, but rest assured she'll get plenty of help.

[Yonivore]

I'm sure you're legitimately concerned about this, but rest assured she'll get plenty of help.
I'm more concerned about Ms. DuBose than the looters are about Michael Brown. Not because I care about her individually but, because of the social decay her plight represents. It was the same in Inglewood and Sanford. Wanton destruction of one's own community, in the name of "justice," is a much more prevalent problem than young African-American teens being "unjustly" treated by the police or "white Hispanics."

[Spurminator]

I'm more concerned about Ms. DuBose than the looters are about Michael Brown.

That's because the "looters" aren't concerned with Michael Brown. The protesters are.


Not because I care about her individually

Naturally.


Wanton destruction of one's own community, in the name of "justice," is a much more prevalent problem than young African-American teens being "unjustly" treated by the police or "white Hispanics."

:lmao Now you trollin' again. Have a good one.

[Yonivore]

That's because the "looters" aren't concerned with Michael Brown. The protesters are.
Why?


Naturally.
I don't know her but, she represents the problem brought by this overwrought sensationalism of single incidents as if they were representative of all interactions between whites and blacks. The police (wrongly, I agree) beat Rodney King because he led them on a dangerous pursuit and resisted arrest at the end of it; not because he was black. George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because he feared he was about to lose consciousness and control of his gun when be believed would then be used to kill him. Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown because he had already attacked him once and was running at him to do it again.

Why can't those who claim such things are epidemic find a case where there is absolutely no extenuating circumstances that would tend to justify (or at least explain) the action as being motivated by something other than race? If the beating of Rodney King and the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are such a huge societal problem, why doesn't this happen more?


:lmao Now you trollin' again. Have a good one.
And you've go not response and no justification for either the protesters or looters.. You have a good one, as well.

[ElNono]

if the prosecution doesn't feel confident that they have a winning case, they aren't going to push for an indictment. the only reason it got as far as it did was the public pressure.

it parallels the zimmerman case, where it was pretty clear the state felt they had no case, but were basically forced by pressure to put him on trial, which ended up with a predictable result.

that being said, the prosecutor's statement today was baffling. based on his own words, i thought a trial seemed appropriate. if the main issues at hand are questions of fact (which is what he implied all along), then that's the literal purpose of a jury trial. i doubt there would have been a conviction anyway, and maybe the decision made today was the correct one, but i think they did a really poor job of describing their reasons not to indict wilson.

Yup, plus the family simply did not get their day in court, which is one of the main tenets that makes our justice system seem just. That's probably the worst part of this whole thing, regardless if Ofc Wilson was innocent or not.

I'm fairly sure they'll eventually get $$$ through civil action, but obviously that's a different matter altogether.

[vy65]

Yup, plus the family simply did not get their day in court, which is one of the main tenets that makes our justice system seem just. That's probably the worst part of this whole thing, regardless if Ofc Wilson was innocent or not.

Disagree with this. Prosecutors have discretion to bring or not bring charges. That wasn't the case here. Public pressure forced the prosecutor to present a case to the grand jury - something he might not otherwise have done has this been not as high profile. The Brown's aren't entitled to their day in court as a matter of course.

[angrydude]

What's lost in all of this is that this didn't happen because Brown was black. It happened because lots of cops are trigger happy assholes who refuse to back down to cool off a situation and instead shoot their way through.

Cops kill people of all colors all the time and the exact same legal outcome occurs.

Difference is most neighborhoods don't riot when it happens.

[FromWayDowntown]

To think that there's no justification for peaceful protest in a situation like this one is beyond ignorant. There have been plenty of anecdotal tales of Ferguson police dealing with black citizens in ways that many could deem unjustified. To use the death of Michael Brown at the hands of a police officer as a basis to bring that problem to light and to try to urge change in ways that might eradicate those circumstances is precisely what protest should be about. Nobody protests things that they agree with; few protest when there's a consensus that justice has been done. Dr. King made considerable strides for racial progress with the mostly peaceful protests that he and his allies led throughout the South. Protests in these contexts -- civil disobedience -- may be seen as ridiculous by some, but those sorts of peaceful protests have changed policy and law throughout American history.

To equate those who peacefully protest with those who usurp peaceful protests to carry out lawlessness is laziness. To simply assume that all protesters engaged in the sort of ridiculous lawlessness that got so many headlines last night and today is equally lazy.

[vy65]

I'm fairly sure they'll eventually get $$$ through civil action, but obviously that's a different matter altogether.

I don't know MO caselaw on this specifically, but Wilson should be able to take advantage of various levels of qualified immunity from the civil lawsuit(s).

[Spurminator]

Why can't those who claim such things are epidemic find a case where there is absolutely no extenuating circumstances that would tend to justify (or at least explain) the action as being motivated by something other than race? If the beating of Rodney King and the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are such a huge societal problem, why doesn't this happen more?

In each one of those examples, the guys with the weapons got off with no penalty... and in Wilson's case, not even a trial. That's their issue here. People are mad because they don't feel like there's any accountability, and they don't feel they're getting a fair say in the process of accountability. The Rodney King jury had 10 whites, a Hispanic, and an Asian. There was one minority, a Puerto Rican, on the Zimmerman jury. Wilson won't even be going to trial.

The problem is not that innocent black kids are being gunned down every day. These are extreme examples that, for these people, illustrate the larger problem. Black Americans are disproportionately suspected of crime, arrested for petty crimes, and given harsher sentences for those crimes. But they are certainly more at risk than any other race of being shot, unarmed, by police for doing something that doesn't require that kind of force. And in the most high-profile of those cases (whether you agree they should have been high-profile or not), there has been no penalty for the shooter/beater.

There is a 0% chance that a white kid walking through a neighborhood at night gets shot by the neighborhood watchman, or that a 12-year old white kid playing "cowboy" and pretending to shoot cars with his toy shotgun in the suburbs gets gunned down by police. And that's without considering what the trial might look like if that did happen.

Meanwhile, the rest of America tells them to suck it up and deal with it. They tell them it's their problem, that they need to change their culture. Try telling a black guy who works hard and hasn't committed any crime in his life that he just needs to quit complaining and accept a higher level of scrutiny and risk because other people who look like him have a higher tendency to be criminals. Or that his kids will have to watch out for that as well. Tell him that he has a responsibility to evolve the culture of people who look like him. Because he's part of that group.

You'd be pissed off too, if the roles were reversed. But you'll never have to worry about it. You were born with the benefit of the doubt.


And you've go not response and no justification for either the protesters or looters..

I don't have to justify protesters. I support the right of people to assemble and protest for anything.

I never claimed the looters were justified. Fuck them for their selfishness and opportunism, and moreso for being a distraction and excuse for people like you. That said, it's a little strange how much we mourn for the loss of cars and bottles of Heineken in the context of things like Katrina and Ferguson. But we've always favored big commerce over humanity.

[CosmicCowboy]

Disagree with this. Prosecutors have discretion to bring or not bring charges. That wasn't the case here. Public pressure forced the prosecutor to present a case to the grand jury - something he might not otherwise have done has this been not as high profile. The Brown's aren't entitled to their day in court as a matter of course.

X2

The prosecutor had access to the same facts the grand jury did. if it had been a white guy shot with the same facts and no media attention it would have never even gone to the grand jury.

[angrydude]

To think that there's no justification for peaceful protest in a situation like this one is beyond ignorant. There have been plenty of anecdotal tales of Ferguson police dealing with black citizens in ways that many could deem unjustified. To use the death of Michael Brown at the hands of a police officer as a basis to bring that problem to light and to try to urge change in ways that might eradicate those circumstances is precisely what protest should be about. Nobody protests things that they agree with; few protest when there's a consensus that justice has been done. Dr. King made considerable strides for racial progress with the mostly peaceful protests that he and his allies led throughout the South. Protests in these contexts -- civil disobedience -- may be seen as ridiculous by some, but those sorts of peaceful protests have changed policy and law throughout American history.

To equate those who peacefully protest with those who usurp peaceful protests to carry out lawlessness is laziness. To simply assume that all protesters engaged in the sort of ridiculous lawlessness that got so many headlines last night and today is equally lazy.

People do protest stuff like this quite a bit. And nobody cares.

The only reason this case got any attention at all is because they vandalized that gas station.

[FromWayDowntown]

It happened because lots of cops are trigger happy assholes who refuse to back down to cool off a situation and instead shoot their way through.

I don't agree with your generic characterization of police officers, but I do agree with the notion that we've made it far too easy for police officers to quickly resort to deadly force when less dramatic means are available to deal with suspects.

I posed the hypothetical before, and I think it still works -- suppose the Brown situation had been reversed; that for some reason, Officer Wilson had been punching Brown and chasing him down. If Officer Wilson was doing those things, would we (societally) think it was a perfectly reasonable thing for Brown to have pulled a gun and shot Wilson dead? I doubt it. I get that police officers put their lives on the lines in some instances, but I don't believe that their willingness to do that also clothes them with authority to be judge, jury, and executioner whenever they get scared; we certainly don't tolerate it too much when citizens who are scared try to defend themselves against aggressive police officers.

[FromWayDowntown]

double post

[CosmicCowboy]

What's lost in all of this is that this didn't happen because Brown was black. It happened because lots of cops are trigger happy assholes who refuse to back down to cool off a situation and instead shoot their way through.

Cops kill people of all colors all the time and the exact same legal outcome occurs.

Difference is most neighborhoods don't riot when it happens.

Cops don't carry guns to protect us. They carry guns to protect themselves.

Smart people know this and don't fuck with the cops.

[FromWayDowntown]

People do protest stuff like this quite a bit. And nobody cares.

Yet here are a bunch of people who come to an internet forum devoted to a basketball team talking about it.

I don't think you can say that nobody cares. It may not result in any change, particularly if the protestors don't try to build political coalitions to put public pressure on those who make and carry out policy. But it's difficult to say this morning that nobody cares about the protests in Missouri.

[spurraider21]

Yup, plus the family simply did not get their day in court, which is one of the main tenets that makes our justice system seem just. That's probably the worst part of this whole thing, regardless if Ofc Wilson was innocent or not.

I'm fairly sure they'll eventually get $$$ through civil action, but obviously that's a different matter altogether.
The family will get their day on civil court. Criminal cases aren't between private parties. What the hell could the family have done in court anyway? Testify that "my son would never hurt a fly!!"

[DarrinS]

I don't agree with your generic characterization of police officers, but I do agree with the notion that we've made it far too easy for police officers to quickly resort to deadly force when less dramatic means are available to deal with suspects.

I posed the hypothetical before, and I think it still works -- suppose the Brown situation had been reversed; that for some reason, Officer Wilson had been punching Brown and chasing him down. If Officer Wilson was doing those things, would we (societally) think it was a perfectly reasonable thing for Brown to have pulled a gun and shot Wilson dead? I doubt it. I get that police officers put their lives on the lines in some instances, but I don't believe that their willingness to do that also clothes them with authority to be judge, jury, and executioner whenever they get scared; we certainly don't tolerate it too much when citizens who are scared try to defend themselves against aggressive police officers.


I also think its far too easy for the media (including social media) to spread false or sketchy information about these events. Then the professional grievance industry starts parroting this information as if they are facts.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm more concerned about Ms. DuBose than the looters are about Michael Brown. Not because I care about her individually but, because of the social decay her plight represents. It was the same in Inglewood and Sanford. Wanton destruction of one's own community, in the name of "justice," is a much more prevalent problem than young African-American teens being "unjustly" treated by the police or "white Hispanics."

I'm not concerned about Ms. Dubose. There's a 95% she votes for and supports the race hustlers that perpetuate this shit.

[ElNono]

Disagree with this. Prosecutors have discretion to bring or not bring charges. That wasn't the case here. Public pressure forced the prosecutor to present a case to the grand jury - something he might not otherwise have done has this been not as high profile. The Brown's aren't entitled to their day in court as a matter of course.

Come on vy, nobody forces the prosecutor to do anything. If he didn't feel like he could bring a case forward, he should've either not brought it, or simply removed himself from the case, and let some other prosecutor that firmly believe there was a case to go for it. Both you and I know there's indictments every day on cases much, much flimsier than this one. Because it was a cop involved, then all prosecutorial diligence changes? That's what makes cases like this stink.

[ElNono]

The family will get their day on civil court. Criminal cases aren't between private parties. What the hell could the family have done in court anyway? Testify that "my son would never hurt a fly!!"

Well, for one, they could've requested cross examination of these alleged incongruent witnesses. And sure, part of a public trial is exploring character's personalities. They simply never had the chance to present their side of the argument. That was, in a way, the prosecutor job, and he apparently did not do that. A public trial is a completely different animal. Even if Wilson was innocent, it's a lot different when they get to say their side of the story.

[101A]

Did you mean MB?

errr. Yes.

[ElNono]

I don't know MO caselaw on this specifically, but Wilson should be able to take advantage of various levels of qualified immunity from the civil lawsuit(s).

Among the legal commentary yesterday (though it was fairly superficial), there was mention that they should have a good shot at the civil level. Take it with a grain of salt.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's unlikely that any other person presented to the grand jury in St. Louis County, Missouri has gotten the kind of treatment that Officer Wilson got in terms of the way the evidence was presented to the grand jury. One wonders how the indictment rate might change if all of those presented to the grand jury were afforded the same courtesies.

If, God forbid, a police officer is killed by a citizen in that jurisdiction, I sincerely doubt that the suspect will be given the same time and attention by the grand jury and that the grand jury will resolve all doubts in favor of the citizen.

[spurraider21]

Well, for one, they could've requested cross examination of these alleged incongruent witnesses. And sure, part of a public trial is exploring character's personalities. They simply never had the chance to present their side of the argument. That was, in a way, the prosecutor job, and he apparently did not do that. A public trial is a completely different animal. Even if Wilson was innocent, it's a lot different when they get to say their side of the story.
they dont have a side of their story that will be taken seriously. they had nothing to do with the incident, have no way of knowing what happened (to this day go along with the hands-up-dont-shoot narrative) and any testimony of how precious their son was would be taken with heaps and heaps of salt anyway

[FromWayDowntown]

Among the legal commentary yesterday (though it was fairly superficial), there was mention that they should have a good shot at the civil level. Take it with a grain of salt.

I think that's actually unlikely. It's very hard to succeed on a civil case against a police officer who is acting in the course and scope of his official duties. The claim generally has to be brought under federal law (28 USC s. 1983, specifically) and in federal court, and officers tend to enjoy at least some kinds of immunity -- at least in certain circumstances. It's been a long time since I've dealt with such a case (and I've never looked at the issues under Missouri law), but my recollection is that while there's a visceral appeal to a civil case, it's a legal longshot.

[ElNono]

It's unlikely that any other person presented to the grand jury in St. Louis County, Missouri has gotten the kind of treatment that Officer Wilson got in terms of the way the evidence was presented to the grand jury. One wonders how the indictment rate might change if all of those presented to the grand jury were afforded the same courtesies.

If, God forbid, a police officer is killed by a citizen in that jurisdiction, I sincerely doubt that the suspect will be given the same time and attention by the grand jury and that the grand jury will resolve all doubts in favor of the citizen.

Pretty much. Heck, at the federal level, the rate of cases in which a grand jury denies an indictment is 0.00006%

[ElNono]

they dont have a side of their story that will be taken seriously. they had nothing to do with the incident, have no way of knowing what happened (to this day go along with the hands-up-dont-shoot narrative) and any testimony of how precious their son was would be taken with heaps and heaps of salt anyway

How it's taken it's up to the jury. It at least affords them to go through all the evidence, be involved in the case of their son's death, and, as I pointed out earlier, a sense of justice: they were heard. The outcome might not end up being what they want, but that's a different story altogether.

[ElNono]

I think that's actually unlikely. It's very hard to succeed on a civil case against a police officer who is acting in the course and scope of his official duties. The claim generally has to be brought under federal law (28 USC s. 1983, specifically) and in federal court, and officers tend to enjoy at least some kinds of immunity -- at least in certain circumstances. It's been a long time since I've dealt with such a case (and I've never looked at the issues under Missouri law), but my recollection is that while there's a visceral appeal to a civil case, it's a legal longshot.

I'll take your word for it. :tu

[FromWayDowntown]

at the federal level, the rate of cases in which a grand jury denies an indictment is 0.00006%

I suspect the numbers are roughly similar at the state level, even in St. Louis County.

The grand jury system is actually set up to prefer indictments to no bills, slanting the field decidedly against the accused (accused individuals are rarely invited to grand jury proceedings, even more rarely asked to tell their story in their own words) and requiring only a probable cause showing (not the adduction of proof beyond a reasonable doubt). A grand jury proceeding shouldn't be a mini-trial, but that is apparently not what this prosecutor thought of this particular presentation.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m

[SnakeBoy]

I suspect the numbers are roughly similar at the state level, even in St. Louis County.

The grand jury system is actually set up to prefer indictments to no bills, slanting the field decidedly against the accused (accused individuals are rarely invited to grand jury proceedings, even more rarely asked to tell their story in their own words) and requiring only a probable cause showing (not the adduction of proof beyond a reasonable doubt). A grand jury proceeding shouldn't be a mini-trial, but that is apparently not what this prosecutor thought of this particular presentation.

Smart move by the prosecutor imo. A long drawn out media hyped trial ending in a not guilty verdict probably would have led to more violence than no indictment.

[vy65]

Come on vy, nobody forces the prosecutor to do anything. If he didn't feel like he could bring a case forward, he should've either not brought it, or simply removed himself from the case, and let some other prosecutor that firmly believe there was a case to go for it. Both you and I know there's indictments every day on cases much, much flimsier than this one. Because it was a cop involved, then all prosecutorial diligence changes? That's what makes cases like this stink.

His hands were tied. He's an elected official. Whether you agree or disagree with the dynamics of electing that office, from a self-preservation stand point, he had to at least put it before the grand jury. If he hadn't, his career would be fucked (not that it isn't already), but there'd be a far greater public/media outcry.

I took a look at some MO caselaw before, and what he did is certainly fine. I know what you're saying about prosecutorial dilligence, but the flip side to that is the ability to exercise discretion to not go to the grand jury in the first place. I think his discretion was taken away from external sources, so he did the next best thing.

You have a point about recusing himself. I don't know if he could have, but that may have been the right thing to do. I don't know.

[vy65]

Even if Wilson was innocent, it's a lot different when they get to say their side of the story.

I think this is a point that isn't getting much attention. The grand jury heard a wealth of evidence. There was testimony from 60 witnesses (although, without cross-examination). To have that much evidence before you and still not think there's probable cause should tell you something about Wilson's innocence.

Another thing that gets swept under the rug is the juries role in this. They're not some pawns of the prosecutor. In my experience, jurors, especially in a case like this, take their job seriously. They pay attention, scrutinize evidence, and, in a grand jury, can ask questions. There's also the judge who's making sure everything is done properly. Given those procedural mechanisms, the fact that the grand jury thought that there wasn't even to meet even the low probable cause standard tells me that Wilson was probably really innocent. So, the idea that this should have gone to a full-blown jury trial seems misguided to me because an innocent person shouldn't be run through a gauntlet of that type of trial because the mob is blood-hungry.

[pgardn]

What's lost in all of this is that this didn't happen because Brown was black. It happened because lots of cops are trigger happy assholes who refuse to back down to cool off a situation and instead shoot their way through.

Cops kill people of all colors all the time and the exact same legal outcome occurs.

Difference is most neighborhoods don't riot when it happens.

It's more likely to happen to a young black male.
Police still have a wide variety of differing tactics depending on what part of the country or even county one is in. Some really do take the peace keeping role seriously, some take the enforcer role first in exactly the same situations.

Bottom line though, if this did go to trial, just on the evidence we have been privy to, the cop walks. Not even the mildest form of man slaughter. The outcome is the same. But we have been allowed a unique look how prosecutors and DA's can deal with grand juries.
My wife had a totally different experiences in her world on two grand juries in Bexar county. Both criminal. I have never been called for one, just silly civil cases. Never got selected. Personally I have learned quite a good deal from this.


And making the announcement after dark was genius. I guess Ferguson wanted all to see the rable that show up in chaotic situations.

[vy65]

I suspect the numbers are roughly similar at the state level, even in St. Louis County.

The grand jury system is actually set up to prefer indictments to no bills, slanting the field decidedly against the accused (accused individuals are rarely invited to grand jury proceedings, even more rarely asked to tell their story in their own words) and requiring only a probable cause showing (not the adduction of proof beyond a reasonable doubt). A grand jury proceeding shouldn't be a mini-trial, but that is apparently not what this prosecutor thought of this particular presentation.

I get that this is what happens as a matter of course, but why is that not reflected in the statutes and case-law governing grand jury procedure? I'm not trying to make a point - I'm just curious.

[Yonivore]

In each one of those examples, the guys with the weapons got off with no penalty... and in Wilson's case, not even a trial. That's their issue here. People are mad because they don't feel like there's any accountability, and they don't feel they're getting a fair say in the process of accountability. The Rodney King jury had 10 whites, a Hispanic, and an Asian. There was one minority, a Puerto Rican, on the Zimmerman jury. Wilson won't even be going to trial.
I'm pretty sure the lives of everyone directly involved in each of these cases was forever changed in a negative way. That's a penalty. And, in the case of Zimmerman and Wilson, they did nothing wrong.


The problem is not that innocent black kids are being gunned down every day.
Neither Michael Brown nor Trayvon Martin were innocent. Both were -- according to witnesses and evidence -- attacking those that shot them.


These are extreme examples that, for these people, illustrate the larger problem.
If these are examples of a problem, one could be forgiven for believing there is no problem or, that the criminal element in predominantly black communities have no regard for life or the law.


Black Americans are disproportionately suspected of crime, arrested for petty crimes, and given harsher sentences for those crimes. But they are certainly more at risk than any other race of being shot, unarmed, by police for doing something that doesn't require that kind of force. And in the most high-profile of those cases (whether you agree they should have been high-profile or not), there has been no penalty for the shooter/beater.
Again, these are not examples of unarmed blacks being shot for no reason (or for reasons not requiring deadly force). In both cases, they were attacking the shooter and the shooter was justified in using the force.


There is a 0% chance that a white kid walking through a neighborhood at night gets shot by the neighborhood watchman, or that a 12-year old white kid playing "cowboy" and pretending to shoot cars with his toy shotgun in the suburbs gets gunned down by police. And that's without considering what the trial might look like if that did happen.
You can't know this. There is a better than 0% chance that a white kid that had just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer would be shot if he, as Brown did, turned and ran toward the officer to attack him again. There is a better than 0% chance that a white kid that was sitting on another man and banging his head against a sidewalk would get shot if the person he was beating was armed.

And, as for the 12 year-old; Kansas Police Shoot Unarmed White Teen 16 times As By Standers Beg Them to Stop Shooting (Video) (http://beforeitsnews.com/police-state/2014/08/kansas-police-shoot-unarmed-white-teen-16-times-as-by-standers-beg-them-to-stop-42.html)


Meanwhile, the rest of America tells them to suck it up and deal with it. They tell them it's their problem, that they need to change their culture. Try telling a black guy who works hard and hasn't committed any crime in his life that he just needs to quit complaining and accept a higher level of scrutiny and risk because other people who look like him have a higher tendency to be criminals. Or that his kids will have to watch out for that as well. Tell him that he has a responsibility to evolve the culture of people who look like him. Because he's part of that group.
The rest of America is telling them to get a hold of their culture and their children because they're committing crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population.


You'd be pissed off too, if the roles were reversed. But you'll never have to worry about it. You were born with the benefit of the doubt.
If that were the case, 100% of blacks would believe as you do. As it is, they don't.


Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said there were "phrases that serve as an excuse for not thinking." One of these phrases that substitute for thought today is one that depicts the current problems of blacks in America as "a legacy of slavery."

...Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and "War on Poverty" programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black "leaders."

Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other "leaders" that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed "legacy of slavery" found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.
He's black, in case you didn't know. And, there are other examples.


I don't have to justify protesters. I support the right of people to assemble and protest for anything.
Nor should you have to but, I notice you left out "peacefully" in front of assemble. Telling.


I never claimed the looters were justified. [/COLOR] Fuck them for their selfishness and opportunism, and moreso for being a distraction and excuse for people like you. [COLOR=#000000] That said, it's a little strange how much we mourn for the loss of cars and bottles of Heineken in the context of things like Katrina and Ferguson. But we've always favored big commerce over humanity.
Destroying people's property and livelihood can, in many cases, destroy their lives. And, in the case of the Inglewood riots, scores of people died as a result of this mentality. I think we're lucky no one lost their life last night...but, it's not over, is it?

[vy65]

I think that's actually unlikely. It's very hard to succeed on a civil case against a police officer who is acting in the course and scope of his official duties. The claim generally has to be brought under federal law (28 USC s. 1983, specifically) and in federal court, and officers tend to enjoy at least some kinds of immunity -- at least in certain circumstances. It's been a long time since I've dealt with such a case (and I've never looked at the issues under Missouri law), but my recollection is that while there's a visceral appeal to a civil case, it's a legal longshot.

I think they could also bring state law tort claims as well. A lot of states also have their own tort claims acts that apply to public servants. So you get those in addition to the 1983 claims, but yah, they're losers.

[Yonivore]

I get that this is what happens as a matter of course, but why is that not reflected in the statutes and case-law governing grand jury procedure? I'm not trying to make a point - I'm just curious.
I think the prosecutor knew the officer would be no billed by the Grand Jury and, also knowing how the community thugs and national race-baiters would respond, decided to air all evidence before the Grand Jury so there would not be any speculation about on what their decision was based. He's also released nearly all the evidence, to the public, that the Grand Jury saw.

They rioted anyway.

[Chomag]

white cop trolling a black neighborhood, always a good idea for the cops.

I agree Cops should just ignore the black neighborhoods and let them steal. kill, and destroy their own. All calls should be unanswered if there are blacks involved...

[Chomag]

.. had time to harass a couple blacks, I'm sure the cop was respectful, polite, non-inflammatory, to get out of the street.

License To Kill (anybody): USA's militarized, anti-citizen police state. Everybody, and everything they own and do, is suspect. It's The American Way.

Steal from a store and its a pretty sure way to get "harassed by cops" Dear god man what universe do you live in! Would it be possible for your to join ours every once in while?

[Yonivore]

So, what happened to the National Guard?

p3cNQlaIF-g

Hmmmm...

[Shastafarian]

http://theurbandaily.com/2014/11/25/bar-association-grand-jury-decision/

National Bar Association questions the decision


The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.

Smackdown on McCullough:


The family of Michael Brown requested that District Attorney McCullough step aside and allow a special prosecutor be assigned to the investigation to give the community confidence that the grand jury would conduct a complete and thorough investigation into the tragic shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown. The grand jury’s decision confirms the fear that many expressed months ago — that a fair and impartial investigation would not happen.

[vy65]

National Bar Association =|= American Bar Association

The National Bar Association was founded in 1925 and is the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges. It represents the interests of approximately 60,000 lawyers, judges, law professors and law students.The NBA is organized around 23 substantive law sections, 9 divisions, 12 regions and 80 affiliate chapters throughout the United States and around the world.

[ElNono]

His hands were tied. He's an elected official. Whether you agree or disagree with the dynamics of electing that office, from a self-preservation stand point, he had to at least put it before the grand jury. If he hadn't, his career would be fucked (not that it isn't already), but there'd be a far greater public/media outcry.

I took a look at some MO caselaw before, and what he did is certainly fine. I know what you're saying about prosecutorial dilligence, but the flip side to that is the ability to exercise discretion to not go to the grand jury in the first place. I think his discretion was taken away from external sources, so he did the next best thing.

You have a point about recusing himself. I don't know if he could have, but that may have been the right thing to do. I don't know.

I don't know about the "the next best thing". Maybe for his career, but certainly not for the people he was representing (which is the family and the citizens of the state, officer Wilson notwithstanding), IMO.


I think this is a point that isn't getting much attention. The grand jury heard a wealth of evidence. There was testimony from 60 witnesses (although, without cross-examination). To have that much evidence before you and still not think there's probable cause should tell you something about Wilson's innocence.

Another thing that gets swept under the rug is the juries role in this. They're not some pawns of the prosecutor. In my experience, jurors, especially in a case like this, take their job seriously. They pay attention, scrutinize evidence, and, in a grand jury, can ask questions. There's also the judge who's making sure everything is done properly. Given those procedural mechanisms, the fact that the grand jury thought that there wasn't even to meet even the low probable cause standard tells me that Wilson was probably really innocent. So, the idea that this should have gone to a full-blown jury trial seems misguided to me because an innocent person shouldn't be run through a gauntlet of that type of trial because the mob is blood-hungry.

I'm not questioning the jurors or even what they found out.

If this is the 'fair' or 'right' thing to do, why isn't this the de-facto standard? Why aren't we doing this for every case, or, at least, the vast majority of cases? When we look at "dynamics", as you say, of how indictments are granted, this case is a huge outlier. Why is it that such high standard seemingly only applies when a cop is involved. I'm sure you would agree there's just something inherently unfair about that, which is what I think undermines what's perceived as justice.

[da_suns_fan]

Lets say Brown wasnt killed. Say Wilson took him down with a taser/mace. How many crimes would he have been charged with?

1) Robbery
2) Jay Walking
3) Resisting arrest
4) Assaulting a police officer
5) Possible attempted murder (grabbing for the cops gun).

What the hell was this kid thinking? Did he just wake up one day and decide he was a completely lawless individual?

[vy65]

I'm not questioning the jurors or even what they found out.

If this is the 'fair' or 'right' thing to do, why isn't this the de-facto standard? Why aren't we doing this for every case, or, at least, the vast majority of cases? When we look at "dynamics", as you say, of how indictments are granted, this case is a huge outlier. Why is it that such high standard seemingly only applies when a cop is involved. I'm sure you would agree there's just something inherently unfair about that, which is what I think undermines what's perceived as justice.

I didn't mean to put it in terms of "fair" or "the right thing to do." All I meant to say is that the grand jury is a competent body, heard a lot of evidence, and didn't think there was probable cause that a crime had been committed. Given that, I don't see what a full blown media circus jury trial would accomplish other than sating the public's thirst for blood.

Statistically speaking, this is and isn't an outlier. It is an outlier in the ham-sandwhich sense of things. It isn't, however, because grand juries rarely indict police officers acting in the course of their duties.

I don't know if something fair or unfair happened because I don't have a sense of Missouri criminal procedure. But for me, I don't have a problem because the grand jury heard a lot of evidence and believed, based on that evidence, that a crime hadn't been committed. And that is a function (hearing all the evidence), albeit less commonly used, that is authorized by the Courts of Missouri. I think there was process, which makes it fair in a sense. A lot of people are upset about the result, but choose to ignore how we got there.

[ElNono]

I get that this is what happens as a matter of course, but why is that not reflected in the statutes and case-law governing grand jury procedure? I'm not trying to make a point - I'm just curious.

You're a lawyer, you know why :lol

But more to the point, I think the system is overburdened, and now you get rubber stamps in a lot of these proceedings as the norm, which we can debate if that's a good thing or not.

[vy65]

Nono - this is from an old MO supreme court case on the grand jury:


In approaching the issue presented we bear in mind two historical functions of a grand jury under the common law of England adopted by what is now § 1.010. One was to accuse and thereby bring to trial those believed to have violated the law. The other, equally important but often overlooked, was to protect the citizen against unfounded accusation of crime. Conway v. Quinn, 168 S.W.2d 445, 446[1] (Mo.App.1942). In State ex rel. Lashly v. Wurdeman, supra, 187 S.W. at 259, this court, speaking of grand juries, said: "That body is a component part of the court, existed at common law, and is recognized in the Constitution, where some of its duties are specified. Its creation and duties are provided for by statutes. The grand jury is a great inquisitorial body, originally designed to vindicate the law and to protect the body of the people from the encroachments of arbitrary power. It is a necessary adjunct of all courts charged with the enforcement of the criminal law." See also State ex rel. Hall v. Burney, 229 Mo.App. 759, 84 S.W.2d 659, 664[5] (1935).

If the idea was to throw everything at the grand jury in the hope of defending Brown, do you think something "wrong," whether legally or otherwise, was done?

[vy65]

You're a lawyer, you know why :lol.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[ElNono]

I didn't mean to put it in terms of "fair" or "the right thing to do." All I meant to say is that the grand jury is a competent body, heard a lot of evidence, and didn't think there was probable cause that a crime had been committed. Given that, I don't see what a full blown media circus jury trial would accomplish other than sating the public's thirst for blood.

Statistically speaking, this is and isn't an outlier. It is an outlier in the ham-sandwhich sense of things. It isn't, however, because grand juries rarely indict police officers acting in the course of their duties.

I don't know if something fair or unfair happened because I don't have a sense of Missouri criminal procedure. But for me, I don't have a problem because the grand jury heard a lot of evidence and believed, based on that evidence, that a crime hadn't been committed. And that is a function (hearing all the evidence), albeit less commonly used, that is authorized by the Courts of Missouri. I think there was process, which makes it fair in a sense. A lot of people are upset about the result, but choose to ignore how we got there.

Yeah, I'm not particularly troubled by the outcome, but how the sausage was made... and not necessarily by the jurors.

[ElNono]

Nono - this is from an old MO supreme court case on the grand jury:

If the idea was to throw everything at the grand jury in the hope of defending Brown, do you think something "wrong," whether legally or otherwise, was done?

I think you posted that before, and just like then, I don't particularly think anything was legally wrong about it. But, I long for the days where every citizen accused of wrongdoing is afforded the same level of scrutiny from a grand jury as this case. Because if you're not wearing a badge, the odds in the real world right now is that a grand jury won't even be convened, it will be a prosecutor and a judge rubber stamping an express trial.

[spurraider21]

I think you posted that before, and just like then, I don't particularly think anything was legally wrong about it. But, I long for the days where every citizen accused of wrongdoing is afforded the same level of scrutiny from a grand jury as this case. Because if you're not wearing a badge, the odds in the real world right now is that a grand jury won't even be convened, it will be a prosecutor and a judge rubber stamping an express trial.
you don't think there should be a different level of scrutiny for somebody whose line of work can require violence?

the criminal courts would be flooded with cases every time a cop lays a hand on somebody

[CosmicCowboy]

I find it hilarious that some idiots are making a big deal out of the fact that Officer Wilson testified before the grand jury.

[Spurminator]

I'm pretty sure the lives of everyone directly involved in each of these cases was forever changed in a negative way. That's a penalty. And, in the case of Zimmerman and Wilson, they did nothing wrong.

:lol Public disapproval = Criminal punishment. Okay. Poor guys even had fundraisers set up for them... Wilson looks to score a cool $500K in exchange for his suffering.


?Neither Michael Brown nor Trayvon Martin were innocent. Both were -- according to witnesses and evidence -- attacking those that shot them.

Didn't say they were.


If these are examples of a problem, one could be forgiven for believing there is no problem or, that the criminal element in predominantly black communities have no regard for life or the law.

Or one could just be willfully ignorant, or, in your case, just full of shit.


Again, these are not examples of unarmed blacks being shot for no reason (or for reasons not requiring deadly force). In both cases, they were attacking the shooter and the shooter was justified in using the force.

As noted before, protesters believe these are examples of a larger problem.


You can't know this. There is a better than 0% chance that a white kid that had just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer would be shot if he, as Brown did, turned and ran toward the officer to attack him again. There is a better than 0% chance that a white kid that was sitting on another man and banging his head against a sidewalk would get shot if the person he was beating was armed.

A white Trayvon wouldn't have been suspected and approached in the first place. 0% chance deadly force gets used on either of them. The confrontations, in all likelihood, never happen.


And, as for the 12 year-old; Kansas Police Shoot Unarmed White Teen 16 times As By Standers Beg Them to Stop Shooting (Video) (http://beforeitsnews.com/police-state/2014/08/kansas-police-shoot-unarmed-white-teen-16-times-as-by-standers-beg-them-to-stop-42.html)Jennings was an adult, not a 12 year old kid. In this case, the officers had background on him - they knew who he was, knew he was suicidal and believed he was armed. They got the wrong information, but their actions were not based on simple superficial bias as was the case with the Cleveland cops. Hell, the CPD was even told by the person who called it in that the kid was probably using a toy gun.


The rest of America is telling them to get a hold of their culture and their children because they're committing crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population.

Yeah and your people are committing school shootings and financial crimes at a disproportionate rate, when are you going to do get a handle on them? Why aren't you doing something about the culture of serial violence, or the disregard for law in the financial sector? Oh yeah, and get a handle on your teachers... What is it with white women and having sex with underage students?

Do you see how stupid that sounds to someone who has nothing to do with the crimes of his "culture"? (Don't answer)


If that were the case, 100% of blacks would believe as you do. As it is, they don't.

:lol There is no single subject that 100% of any group agrees on. And no one said that 100% of blacks experience that kind of profiling.


Nor should you have to but, I notice you left out "peacefully" in front of assemble. Telling.

Welp, you got me, I guess this whole time I've been subtly condoning riots.

[ElNono]

you don't think there should be a different level of scrutiny for somebody whose line of work can require violence?

No. Do we have a different level of scrutiny for private security, or bouncers at a club? You can shield cops with laws (which happens and it's fine), but there should be no reason to change the process in which we administer justice, IMO.

[vy65]

I find it hilarious that some idiots are making a big deal out of the fact that Officer Wilson testified before the grand jury.

I thought the issue wasn't that he testified, but that he wasn't cross-examined by the DA.

[ElNono]

I find it hilarious that some idiots are making a big deal out of the fact that Officer Wilson testified before the grand jury.

It's not illegal, but it's exceedingly rare.

[vy65]

No. Do we have a different level of scrutiny for private security, or bouncers at a club? You can shield cops with laws (which happens and it's fine), but there should be no reason to change the process in which we administer justice, IMO.

Well, couldn't you say that the process was the same even though Wilson was a cop?

Most grand juries quickly return indictments because they believe what LE tells them. So, all things being normal, wouldn't a typical grand jury have just believed what Wilson said happened and that'd be the end of it? Instead, we got a long drawn out process where eye-witnesses who testified to the contrary of what LE said occurred.

I know that your point about process is ultimately about having a jury trial - and I'm getting off topic a bit here. But I think it's safe to say that Wilson's story was subjected to a level of scrutiny that is somewhat atypical.

[Yonivore]

I don't know about the "the next best thing". Maybe for his career, but certainly not for the people he was representing (which is the family and the citizens of the state, officer Wilson notwithstanding), IMO.



I'm not questioning the jurors or even what they found out.

If this is the 'fair' or 'right' thing to do, why isn't this the de-facto standard? Why aren't we doing this for every case, or, at least, the vast majority of cases? When we look at "dynamics", as you say, of how indictments are granted, this case is a huge outlier. Why is it that such high standard seemingly only applies when a cop is involved. I'm sure you would agree there's just something inherently unfair about that, which is what I think undermines what's perceived as justice.
Because, it's just not everyday the community spends months ramping up to a violent response to a no bill and let's you know what they're planning.

The prosecutor said why he did things the way he did. The media and "protestors" were trying this case in the media with "evidence" they deemed to air. Which, according to the prosecutor, tended to be from "witnesses" who statements were either contradicted by the physical evidence or who told varying accounts of the shooting when questioned by police.

In terms of attention, this case has been a "huge outlier" since the very beginning. It's not every day a community is threatened with violence if the legal system doesn't produce the result they want.

[ElNono]

Well, couldn't you say that the process was the same even though Wilson was a cop?

Most grand juries quickly return indictments because they believe what LE tells them. So, all things being normal, wouldn't a typical grand jury have just believed what Wilson said happened and that'd be the end of it? Instead, we got a long drawn out process where eye-witnesses who testified to the contrary of what LE said occurred.

I know that your point about process is ultimately about having a jury trial - and I'm getting off topic a bit here. But I think it's safe to say that Wilson's story was subjected to a level of scrutiny that is somewhat atypical.

Well, in this particular case Wilson was the accused. I also agree that "Wilson's story was subjected to a level of scrutiny that is somewhat atypical", but I think largely the reason for that is that the process itself was atypical (notice: not illegal, atypical). And that actually points more towards how the prosecution handled this case than anything.

[ElNono]

Because, it's just not everyday the community spends months ramping up to a violent response to a no bill and let's you know what they're planning.

The prosecutor said why he did things the way he did. The media and "protestors" were trying this case in the media with "evidence" they deemed to air. Which, according to the prosecutor, tended to be from "witnesses" who statements were either contradicted by the physical evidence or who told varying accounts of the shooting when questioned by police.

In terms of attention, this case has been a "huge outlier" since the very beginning. It's not every day a community is threatened with violence if the legal system doesn't produce the result they want.

You're far behind Yoni. Catch up, or not.

[CosmicCowboy]

I thought the issue wasn't that he testified, but that he wasn't cross-examined by the DA.


It's not illegal, but it's exceedingly rare.

It's rare because if he chooses to testify the accused has to go in front of the Grand Jury and answer any and all questions the grand jury asks...without his attorney being present and anything he says to the grand jury would be admissible at his trial if he was charged.

That's just not what guilty people do.

[ElNono]

It's rare because if he chooses to testify the accused has to go in front of the Grand Jury and answer any and all questions the grand jury asks...without his attorney being present and anything he says to the grand jury would be admissible at his trial if he was charged.

That's just not what guilty people do.

My understanding is that it's exceedingly rare that a grand jury would even request testimony from the accused. The standard is pretty low in grand jury cases, normally the prosecutor stating his case is all it takes to get an indictment.

[Yonivore]

:lol Public disapproval = Criminal punishment. Okay. Poor guys even had fundraisers set up for them... Wilson looks to score a cool $500K in exchange for his suffering.
You just said penalty. There's nothing to support criminal punishment, the evidence support Wilson's and Zimmerman's account of events. So, yeah, they've suffered needlessly for doing the right thing. 500K in exchange for his career? Hell, he's probably going to be dragged through the civil courts, as well. Zimmerman hasn't fared much better. I'm sure both of them wish they had never encountered the criminals whose lives they ended.




Didn't say they were.
So, this...

The problem is not that innocent black kids are being gunned down every day.
...wasn't alluding to Martin or Brown? Then how are they examples of a larger problem?


Or one could just be willfully ignorant, or, in your case, just full of shit.
Oh, there's a problem but, it's not the one you think. Black youths and young adults commit violent crimes against each other and whites at a very disproportionate rate than do white youth and young adults again each other and blacks. It's a sad but true fact.


As noted before, protesters believe these are examples of a larger problem.
No they don't, they just want to be lemmings that bark on the orders of the race baiters of this country.


A white Trayvon wouldn't have been suspected and approached in the first place. 0% chance deadly force gets used on either of them. The confrontations, in all likelihood, never happen.
You can't know that. All other things being equal, I say there's as much a likelihood the guy gets shot no matter his race.


Jennings was an adult, not a 12 year old kid. In this case, the officers had background on him - they knew who he was, knew he was suicidal and believed he was armed. They got the wrong information, but their actions were not based on simple superficial bias as was the case with the Cleveland cops. Hell, the CPD was even told by the person who called it in that the kid was probably using a toy gun.
You weren't there so, you don't know the circumstances -- just as you don't know the circumstances in Ferguson, Sanford, or anywhere else -- unless you were a witness or party to the shooting. If the police officers shot that 12 year-old unjustly, then I hope they're held accountable. But, I'm not going to let the media tell me what happened -- they're not trustworthy.


Yeah and your people are committing school shootings and financial crimes at a disproportionate rate, when are you going to do get a handle on them? Why aren't you doing something about the culture of serial violence, or the disregard for law in the financial sector? Oh yeah, and get a handle on your teachers... What is it with white women and having sex with underage students?
Liberals stand in the way. I'm all for throwing the mentally ill back in institutions but, alas, liberals set them out on the streets. Teachers' union prevent harsh punishment of their members but, you got to admit, we're making progress on catching and prosecuting these offenders...or, sadly, the incidence of it has gone up. I'm not sure to what you refer in the financial sector except that there's been a lot of complaining about how the LAW favors big business -- not that big business is violating it.


Do you see how stupid that sounds to someone who has nothing to do with the crimes of his "culture"? (Don't answer)
Because it is stupid and totally unrelated to the issue. (I answered)


:lol There is no single subject that 100% of any group agrees on. And no one said that 100% of blacks experience that kind of profiling.
And none of the cases over which the "group" is protesting are examples of racial profiling. Michael Brown robbed a store, Michael Brown was walking down the middle of the street, Michael Brown attached the police officer that stopped and asked him to move out of the street. Michael Brown, after assaulting the officer and walking away, turned and charged that ARMED officer (after telling him he was too big of a pussy to shoot him). Why is Michael Brown the martyr chosen by the aggrieved?

Trayvon Martin was acting suspicious. There had been a rash of property crimes in the gated community. Zimmerman had every right to try and determine if Martin might be committing a crime. There is absolutely no other explanation that fits the physical evidence other than Trayvon Martin either circled back or laid in wait for George Zimmerman and attacked him as he walked between the condos at the point he was attacked. Given the length of the phone call between Zimmerman and police -- Martin could have been at his father's condo sharing his Skittles with he little brother before Zimmerman hung up the phone. Again, why is Trayvon Martin the martyr chosen by the aggrieved?

Aren't there any truly innocent black teens being gunned down?

Glad you asked because they are being gunned down by the bus loads in the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles by other black teens; because they're wearing the wrong color, wearing a desirable pair of shoes, standing on the wrong corner, looking at the wrong girl or, hell, just sitting on their porch enjoying an nice evening.


Welp, you got me, I guess this whole time I've been subtly condoning riots.
It appears you have.

[Yonivore]

It's not illegal, but it's exceedingly rare.
Well, it's exceedingly rare that a bunch thugs are threatening to burn down your city if the Grand Jury doesn't do what they want.

And, It's exceedingly rare for a homicide to be tried in the national media.

But, when it happens, I would expect the officials to do whatever is necessary to insulate himself and the Grand Jury against any charges of bias or impropriety. He laid all his cards on the table. That the community decided to riot anyway shows they weren't interested in justice they were only interested in getting their way.

[ElNono]

Well, it's exceedingly rare that a bunch thugs are threatening to burn down your city if the Grand Jury doesn't do what they want.

And, It's exceedingly rare for a homicide to be tried in the national media.

But, when it happens, I would expect the officials to do whatever is necessary to insulate himself and the Grand Jury against any charges of bias or impropriety. He laid all his cards on the table. That the community decided to riot anyway shows they weren't interested in justice they were only interested in getting their way.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything we're conversing here. I'm in the opinion that violence would've erupted there sooner or later, regardless of this particular process. I don't condone such violence.

I'm discussing the process, because it's the only thing that interests me about this case. The violence, the media... feel free to discuss that with somebody that cares about that.

[The Reckoning]

Yes we feel so bad for the kid that we go loot stores for air jordans

[Yonivore]

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything we're conversing here. I'm in the opinion that violence would've erupted there sooner or later, regardless of this particular process. I don't condone such violence.

I'm discussing the process, because it's the only thing that interests me about this case. The violence, the media... feel free to discuss that with somebody that cares about that.

Well, bully for you, ElNono. Feel free to ignore me counselor.

[ElNono]

Well, bully for you, ElNono. Feel free to ignore me counselor.

:tu

[Yonivore]

"...why isn't this the de-facto standard? Why aren't we doing this for every case, or, at least, the vast majority of cases?
Because it would be cumbersome, costly, and unnecessary to follow such a regimen on all, or even most, cases.


When we look at "dynamics", as you say, of how indictments are granted, this case is a huge outlier.
That's because the public and media scrutiny on this case is also a huge outlier when compared to the attention given the vast majority of other homicides -- even police involved homicides.


Why is it that such high standard seemingly only applies when a cop is involved.
I'm not sure this is supported by experience. As you've already stated, this is a huge outlier and, I woiuld add, among officer involved homicides, as well.


I'm sure you would agree there's just something inherently unfair about that, which is what I think undermines what's perceived as justice.
What seems unfair is the 24/7 news cycle fomenting unrest and the "protesters" threatening violence and destruction if their demands aren't met.

I hope I did a better job responding to your "conversation" about the process.

[Spurminator]

You just said penalty. There's nothing to support criminal punishment, the evidence support Wilson's and Zimmerman's account of events. So, yeah, they've suffered needlessly for doing the right thing. 500K in exchange for his career? Hell, he's probably going to be dragged through the civil courts, as well. Zimmerman hasn't fared much better. I'm sure both of them wish they had never encountered the criminals whose lives they ended.

So, this...wasn't alluding to Martin or Brown? Then how are they examples of a larger problem?

Black people feel trampled upon by the legal system. There is plenty of evidence that they are. They will rally around high profile cases like these, whether those specific cases are valid or not. I don't need to debate this at length with you. If you think a black kid caught with a joint is going to be treated the same as a white kid, and you don't see how that is at all relevant to this whole mess, then it's pointless to have this conversation.


You can't know that. All other things being equal, I say there's as much a likelihood the guy gets shot no matter his race.

Of course you would say that.


You weren't there so, you don't know the circumstances -- just as you don't know the circumstances in Ferguson, Sanford, or anywhere else -- unless you were a witness or party to the shooting. If the police officers shot that 12 year-old unjustly, then I hope they're held accountable. But, I'm not going to let the media tell me what happened -- they're not trustworthy.

Conveniently your distrust of the media doesn't extend to everything else going on in Ferguson.


Liberals stand in the way. I'm all for throwing the mentally ill back in institutions but, alas, liberals set them out on the streets. Teachers' union prevent harsh punishment of their members but, you got to admit, we're making progress on catching and prosecuting these offenders...or, sadly, the incidence of it has gone up. I'm not sure to what you refer in the financial sector except that there's been a lot of complaining about how the LAW favors big business -- not that big business is violating it.

:lol Liberals' fault. I should have known. Anyway, you completely miss the point as usual.


Aren't there any truly innocent black teens being gunned down?

"Truly innocent" is a convenient qualifier because it gives you an out to excuse excessive violence. Besides maybe Trayvon was simply protecting himself from some random nut pointing a gun at him for no reason, from his perspective. We won't know because he didn't get to tell his side of the story.

Here's another example of excessive violence against a young black male shopping at Walmart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/25/ohio-wal-mart-surveillance-video-shows-police-shooting-and-killing-john-crawford-iii/


Glad you asked because they are being gunned down by the bus loads in the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles by other black teens; because they're wearing the wrong color, wearing a desirable pair of shoes, standing on the wrong corner, looking at the wrong girl or, hell, just sitting on their porch enjoying an nice evening.

Right, back to "do something about your culture." Those killers, when caught, are held accountable, so there's not really much to debate there in terms of justice.

[Yonivore]

Black people feel trampled upon by the legal system. There is plenty of evidence that they are. They will rally around high profile cases like these, whether those specific cases are valid or not. I don't need to debate this at length with you. If you think a black kid caught with a joint is going to be treated the same as a white kid, and you don't see how that is at all relevant to this whole mess, then it's pointless to have this conversation.
But if, as you say, there is plenty of evidence, why are they forced to rally around cases like these? Why not one that has a legitimate innocent victim?


Of course you would say that.
Because there's no evidence to the contrary.


Conveniently your distrust of the media doesn't extend to everything else going on in Ferguson.
Such as?


:lol Liberals' fault. I should have known. Anyway, you completely miss the point as usual.
So, what is the point? You have a huge chip on your shoulder?


"Truly innocent" is a convenient qualifier because it gives you an out to excuse excessive violence. Besides maybe Trayvon was simply protecting himself from some random nut pointing a gun at him for no reason, from his perspective. We won't know because he didn't get to tell his side of the story.
But, the forensic evidence says otherwise and is in agreement with Zimmerman's version of events.


Here's another example of excessive violence against a young black male shopping at Walmart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/25/ohio-wal-mart-surveillance-video-shows-police-shooting-and-killing-john-crawford-iii/
What did a Grand Jury decide in that case?

It happens to white people too. In fact, it happens so little, at all, in a country of almost 400 million people, that you cannot infer a racial component unless there is evidence the decision to shoot was made based on race. The best you can allege is that police officers are too quick to use deadly force in some cases and, in that, I will agree. Although I do not agree in the case of Michael Brown. Nor do I believe Zimmerman used excessive force.

Gunned Down in Vegas: What Really Happened to Erik Scott? (http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/)

I will also note the level of anger over the shooting of Erik Scott is equal to that of Michael Brown -- only, hoards of "protesters" didn't threaten to burn down Las Vegas if the cops weren't indicted.


Right, back to "do something about your culture." Those killers, when caught, are held accountable, so there's not really much to debate there in terms of justice.
You don't think there is something wrong in the black community, where young blacks are killing each other at such a high rate? Frankly, I think it's a bigger problem than police shooting thugs...black or white.

[ElNono]

Because it would be cumbersome, costly, and unnecessary to follow such a regimen on all, or even most, cases.

It was a rhetorical question.


That's because the public and media scrutiny on this case is also a huge outlier when compared to the attention given the vast majority of other homicides -- even police involved homicides.

Should that change the way we impart justice? I'm sticking with no. Feel free to disagree.


I'm not sure this is supported by experience. As you've already stated, this is a huge outlier and, I woiuld add, among officer involved homicides, as well.

I think you misunderstood what I was calling an outlier. I wasn't referring to this being an exceptional case (regardless if it was for whatever reasons you want to attribute to it).

I was calling it an outlier because factually speaking, the rate at which a grand jury does not return an indictment is well below 1%. The reason for that was already well put by FWD earlier in the thread.


What seems unfair is the 24/7 news cycle fomenting unrest and the "protesters" threatening violence and destruction if their demands aren't met.

I didn't get that message from the news cycle, but admittedly, I don't watch much cable TV.

[russellgoat]

Michael Brown was just a black bundle of cells. Get the fuck over it.

[Yonivore]

Should that change the way we impart justice? I'm sticking with no. Feel free to disagree.
If it changes in the direction of more, not less, scrutiny, as in this case, I have no problem with it.


I think you misunderstood what I was calling an outlier. I wasn't referring to this being an exceptional case (regardless if it was for whatever reasons you want to attribute to it).

I was calling it an outlier because factually speaking, the rate at which a grand jury does not return an indictment is well below 1%. The reason for that was already well put by FWD earlier in the thread.
Well, begging your pardon but, it appeared your assertion it was a "huge outlier" seemed to be connected with the "dynamics of how indictments are granted," not with whether or not they are granted at all. It was to that muddled message I was responding. And, in a binary process of indictment or no bill, there are no outliers; it's either one or the other and it's either in the majority (indictment) or minority (no bill).


I didn't get that message from the news cycle, but admittedly, I don't watch much cable TV.
I don't watch cable news at all but, there were dozens of stories -- from such sources -- posted on the web that showed the threats being made by "protesters." What good would it be for ratings if the protests were peaceful? For instance, CNN pulled the same stunt as NBC did, during the Sanford case, by showing grainy CCTV footage of Wilson leaving the police department, en route to the hospital for treatment of his injuries and noting there were no visible injuries. You would have thought the media would have learned from the last time they did that. Also, I have yet to her Brown described as anything other than an "unarmed teenager." You know, he was also a suspected robber who had allegedly assaulted the officer that shot him, right? He was also bigger than Officer Wilson.

[ElNono]

If it changes in the direction of more, not less, scrutiny, as in this case, I have no problem with it.

For everybody or only when a cop is is the accused?


Well, begging your pardon but, it appeared your assertion it was a "huge outlier" seemed to be connected with the "dynamics of how indictments are granted," not with whether or not they are granted at all. It was to that muddled message I was responding. And, in a binary process of indictment or no bill, there are no outliers; it's either one or the other and it's either in the majority (indictment) or minority (no bill).

I think vy65, whom I borrowed the "dynamics" term from (in the context of our conversation) understood me just fine.

Statistically speaking, when you have 160,000 indictments vs 11 non-indictments from grand juries, being one of the 11 is certainly an outlier, regardless of the merits of any particular case. Anybody that worked in the judiciary understands why that is, because they understand how our current system of justice works. We can debate if such a process is "just" or not, but this was basically my response to vy's assertion that an alleged innocent person shouldn't face a jury trial (which I agree, but I doubt it's largely the case nowadays).

[Spurminator]

But if, as you say, there is plenty of evidence, why are they forced to rally around cases like these? Why not one that has a legitimate innocent victim?

Usually the more the media covers an example, the more people rally around it. I'm not holding the media unaccountable for helping turn this into the boiling point it became. I wish there was as much scrutiny when a 19-year-old kid gets 25 year for pot possession, but just because you're not seeing it on the news as much doesn't mean it's not happening and noticeable in those communities.

And let's not forget that this didn't really come to a head in the media until the police started sending tanks into Ferguson.


Such as?

The rioters, the protesters, the law enforcement... You know, everything that is going on in Ferguson right now. You're not there, so your opinion of all of this is informed by the media.


So, what is the point? You have a huge chip on your shoulder?

My point is that you can't hold people responsible for the actions of other people who look like them.


But, the forensic evidence says otherwise and is in agreement with Zimmerman's version of events.

Forensic evidence can't show motive.


What did a Grand Jury decide in that case?

No trial.


You don't think there is something wrong in the black community, where young blacks are killing each other at such a high rate? Frankly, I think it's a bigger problem than police shooting thugs...black or white.

Define the black community? The black people I know come from good families, have good jobs and have generally the same lifestyle as I do. What do you suggest they do about young black thugs killing each other? Are they a part of this "black community" you speak of? What are their responsibilities to this community? Are they the same as your responsibilities to the "white community"?

Yes, I think there are serious issues in the poorest communities in America, where a large part of the population is black. And what we're currently doing to fix those problems isn't working.

[Yonivore]

f3PJF0YE-x4

igQDvYOt_iA

[Yonivore]

Define the black community? The black people I know come from good families, have good jobs and have generally the same lifestyle as I do. What do you suggest they do about young black thugs killing each other? Are they a part of this "black community" you speak of? What are their responsibilities to this community? Are they the same as your responsibilities to the "white community"?

Yes, I think there are serious issues in the poorest communities in America, where a large part of the population is black. And what we're currently doing to fix those problems isn't working.
How about you be more like Chris Rock. Or, better yet, get at least as upset about black on black crime as you do about a homicide involving a white police officer and a black thug -- also not occurring in your community.

[Yonivore]

For everybody or only when a cop is is the accused?
Whenever circumstances warrant.


I think vy65, whom I borrowed the "dynamics" term from (in the context of our conversation) understood me just fine.

Statistically speaking, when you have 160,000 indictments vs 11 non-indictments from grand juries, being one of the 11 is certainly an outlier, regardless of the merits of any particular case. Anybody that worked in the judiciary understands why that is, because they understand how our current system of justice works. We can debate if such a process is "just" or not, but this was basically my response to vy's assertion that an alleged innocent person shouldn't face a jury trial (which I agree, but I doubt it's largely the case nowadays).
I understand what you're saying and it but a matter of semantics. I do not believe you're using the term "outlier" in the proper context and, in the context in which you did use it, it appeared to describe the process not the outcome. Yes, "outlier" is a statistical term but, it means an observation point that is distant from all other observation points. And, in that context, the process the prosecutor has employed in this instance is an "outlier" when compared to all other Grand Jury processes -- I believe it is unique.

[Spurminator]

:lol How do you know how upset they are about black-on-black crime? Because of what you get from the media you distrust so much.

[Yonivore]

:lol How do you know how upset they are about black-on-black crime? Because of what you get from the media you distrust so much.
So, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, et. al. are putting their community organizer creds to work organizing against black on black crime and I missed it? There are protesters amassing in the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles, demanding an end to black on black crime, and the media isn't reporting it?

What am I missing?

[ElNono]

Whenever circumstances warrant.

So not for everybody? Why would "circumstances" change that, if one of the tenets for justice in this country enshrined in the Constitution is that we're all the equal under the law?


I understand what you're saying and it but a matter of semantics. I do not believe you're using the term "outlier" in the proper context and, in the context in which you did use it, it appeared to describe the process not the outcome. Yes, "outlier" is a statistical term but, it means an observation point that is distant from all other observation points. And, in that context, the process the prosecutor has employed in this instance is an "outlier" when compared to all other Grand Jury processes -- I believe it is unique.

Well, that was my response to "an innocent person shouldn't be run through a gauntlet of that type of trial" (referring to jury trials). I think that goes beyond this case but, unfortunately, looking at the statistics, our system is setup largely not to work that way, and jury trials are largely the venue where such determinations are made.

[Yonivore]

So not for everybody? Why would "circumstances" change that, if one of the tenets for justice in this country enshrined in the Constitution is that we're all the equal under the law?
I tried to explain that earlier but, you said it wasn't germane to the conversation.

In the case, the circumstance that your community is about to be razed by a bunch of blood-thirsty criminals demanding an outcome without knowing the facts might be a circumstance when you would want to engage in a Grand Jury process such as was done in Ferguson, Missouri.


Well, that was my response to "an innocent person shouldn't be run through a gauntlet of that type of trial" (referring to jury trials). I think that goes beyond this case but, unfortunately, looking at the statistics, our system is setup largely not to work that way, and jury trials are largely the venue where such determinations are made.
Okay, whatever you say.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fighting with a cop for his weapon -- not a good idea

That was one of the points of fact in question.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

The transcripts are a gold mine

[Yonivore]

That was one of the points of fact in question.
And, there is forensic evidence that supports there was a struggle, during which a gun was discharged inside Officer Wilson's patrol vehicle. There's also forensic evidence Michael Brown was outside the driver's door and that Officer was seated in in the driver's seat when the struggle occurred. The gun discharged, striking the inside door panel, penetrating the door and shattering the rolled down window (the opening through which Michael Brown was assaulting Officer Wilson).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And, there is forensic evidence that supports there was a struggle, during which a gun was discharged inside Officer Wilson's patrol vehicle. There's also forensic evidence Michael Brown was outside the driver's door and that Officer was seated in in the driver's seat when the struggle occurred. The gun discharged, striking the inside door panel, penetrating the door and shattering the rolled down window (the opening through which Michael Brown was assaulting Officer Wilson).

That doesn't mean he went for the gun. As has been pointed out, defense wounds look much the same. How about the lack of bruising, lacerations, etc from his hospital examination?

[Spurminator]

So, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, et. al. are putting their community organizer creds to work organizing against black on black crime and I missed it? There are protesters amassing in the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles, demanding an end to black on black crime, and the media isn't reporting it?

What am I missing?

Jackson, Sharpton and Obama speak for all black people? I didn't realize you were only criticizing three people here, it seemed like you were criticizing the entire black community. But if you Google those names and anti-violence, I'm sure you'll find some examples of work they've done to try to curb inner-city violence, assuming you trust the source. Also, if it makes you feel any better, Chris Rock likes those guys.

Or, you could get outside and talk to people to get a real perspective on how people feel about black-on-black crime.

[Spurminator]

your community is about to be razed by a bunch of blood-thirsty criminals demanding an outcome without knowing the facts .

Not the same people.

[Yonivore]

Not the same people.

Not the same people as who? The people in your community or the people committing black-on-black crime elsewhere?

[Yonivore]

OBAMA LECTURES AMERICA ABOUT THE JUSTIFIED ANGER TOWARDS LAW ENFORCEMENT IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/25/Obama-Lectures-America-About-The-Justified-Anger-Towards-Law-Enforcement-In-Minority-Communities)

Here, Spurm, the President agrees with you. Too bad our President won't lecture the minority community on unjustified violence over a process that doesn't produce the result they want.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thanks Obama!

[ElNono]

I tried to explain that earlier but, you said it wasn't germane to the conversation.

In the case, the circumstance that your community is about to be razed by a bunch of blood-thirsty criminals demanding an outcome without knowing the facts might be a circumstance when you would want to engage in a Grand Jury process such as was done in Ferguson, Missouri.

This case doesn't really matter in answering that question. The fundamental idea is that you think we shouldn't all be the same under the laws. Some should get preferential treatment, while others do not, as "circumstances warrant".

I don't subscribe to that notion, because it inherently undermines the concept we have of justice, a pillar of this country. And because, obviously, it's a slippery slope.

[Spurminator]

Not the same people as who? The people in your community or the people committing black-on-black crime elsewhere?

The protesters and the looters aren't the same people. Jesus, dude, keep up...


OBAMA LECTURES AMERICA ABOUT THE JUSTIFIED ANGER TOWARDS LAW ENFORCEMENT IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/25/Obama-Lectures-America-About-The-Justified-Anger-Towards-Law-Enforcement-In-Minority-Communities)

Here, Spurm, the President agrees with you. Too bad our President won't lecture the minority community on unjustified violence over a process that doesn't produce the result they want.

Seems like he was very specifically addressing potential looters in his speech today and yesterday. Maybe if you read the speech instead of getting your talking points from Breitbart (LOL) you'd feel better about it. I'm not going to argue against a claim made by a headline about a speech. I prefer the primary source material.

From yesterday, following the decision:


But I join Michael’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. Let me repeat Michael’s father’s words: “Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.” Michael Brown’s parents have lost more than anyone. We should be honoring their wishes.

I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur. Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They’ve got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law. As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence -- distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.

But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up. Separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion. I don't think that's the norm. I don't think that's true for the majority of communities or the vast majority of law enforcement officials. But these are real issues. And we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tamp them down. What we need to do is to understand them and figure out how do we make more progress. And that can be done.

That won't be done by throwing bottles. That won't be done by smashing car windows. That won't be done by using this as an excuse to vandalize property. And it certainly won't be done by hurting anybody. So, to those in Ferguson, there are ways of channeling your concerns constructively and there are ways of channeling your concerns destructively. Michael Brown’s parents understand what it means to be constructive. The vast majority of peaceful protesters, they understand it as well.
Those of you who are watching tonight understand that there’s never an excuse for violence, particularly when there are a lot of people in goodwill out there who are willing to work on these issues.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/24/remarks-president-after-announcement-decision-grand-jury-ferguson-missou

And today... I mean some of this is even in the Breitbart article, though predictably they chose to rile their gullible readers up by focusing on other snippets.


"Burning buildings, torching cards, destroying property, putting people at risk, that's destructive and there's no excuse for it. Those are criminal acts. People should be prosecuted if they engage in criminal acts," the president said during a speech in Chicago. "To those who think that what happened in Ferguson is an excuse for violence, I do not have any sympathy for that. I have no sympathy at all for destroying your own communities."

"I've never seen a civil rights law or a health care bill or an immigration bill result because a car got burned," Mr. Obama said. "It happened because people vote, it happened because people mobilize, it happened because people organize, it happens because people look at what are the best policies to solve a problem. That's how you actually move something forward."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-no-sympathy-for-violent-acts-in-ferguson/

I mean, really, Breitbart? Your intelligence isn't insulted by that rag? Maybe I've given you too much credit... I thought you were a clever shill but judging by your inability to keep up with the discussion in this thread and your tendency to use sources like Breitbart to support your arguments (despite also claiming you don't trust the media), maybe you really are just a gullible dumbass. Night.

[Yonivore]

The protesters and the looters aren't the same people. Jesus, dude, keep up...
Which is Michael Brown's father?

MLlDzWt7TPc

And, personal attacks are for people losing arguments.

[pgardn]

This is really tough.

It is very clear some eyewitnesses must be lying.
There is too much time for the whole ordeal for there to be such different views.
I can see how some parts are fuzzy, but not others.

[Spurminator]

Which is Michael Brown's father?

MLlDzWt7TPc

I can cut a grieving family member a little slack. He shouldn't have reacted that way. Do you have pictures of him actually looting?

Based on timelines posted all over the web of last night, the looting didn't begin until over an hour after the statement was read. If you've got something other else showing that this actually caused his supporters to mobilize and start vandalizing the city, I'm open to it. I probably shouldn't have been so definitive anyway, because I'm sure there were a few rioters who were genuinely angry about the Brown case. Most, however, were just there for the scene and free shit.


And, personal attacks are for people losing arguments.

So is ignoring whole blocks of text that directly refute your argument. And changing the subject every chance you get.

[Yonivore]

I can cut a grieving family member a little slack. He shouldn't have reacted that way. Do you have pictures of him actually looting?

Based on timelines posted all over the web of last night, the looting didn't begin until over an hour after the statement was read. If you've got something other else showing that this actually caused his supporters to mobilize and start vandalizing the city, I'm open to it. I probably shouldn't have been so definitive anyway, because I'm sure there were a few rioters who were genuinely angry about the Brown case. Most, however, were just there for the scene and free shit.
I think the crossover is a lot bigger than you're willing to admit.


So is ignoring whole blocks of text that directly refute your argument. And changing the subject every chance you get.
It's an already tedious exchange -- throw in personal attacks and, I lose interest in even trying to discern your points from the "whole blocks of text..."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now yoni is playing the martyr card and ignoring the rest of the argument. THAT is the sign of someone losing.

[Yonivore]

Now yoni is playing the martyr card and ignoring the rest of the argument. THAT is the sign of someone losing.
Nah, just the lazy, disinterested card.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nah, just the lazy, disinterested card.

That still results in you losing the argument. I don't give a shit about motive. I am interested in result.

[Yonivore]

That still results in you losing the argument. I don't give a shit about motive. I am interested in result.
Yeah! You and Spurm won the internet.

How's that working out for the citizens of Ferguson?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah! You and Spurm won the internet.

How's that working out for the citizens of Ferguson?

No we won the argument against you. That it happened on the internet is just an aside.

[Spurminator]

Lazy goes without saying, but LOL @ 11 straight hours of "disinterested" arguing.

[Yonivore]

Lazy goes without saying, but LOL @ 11 straight hours of "disinterested" arguing.
Technology is fantastic. Put it all together and I've probably spent an hour actually reading and posting. Still too long, I agree.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The protesters and the looters aren't the same people. Jesus, dude, keep up...



Seems like he was very specifically addressing potential looters in his speech today and yesterday. Maybe if you read the speech instead of getting your talking points from Breitbart (LOL) you'd feel better about it. I'm not going to argue against a claim made by a headline about a speech. I prefer the primary source material.

From yesterday, following the decision:



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/24/remarks-president-after-announcement-decision-grand-jury-ferguson-missou

And today... I mean some of this is even in the Breitbart article, though predictably they chose to rile their gullible readers up by focusing on other snippets.


[/FONT][/COLOR]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-no-sympathy-for-violent-acts-in-ferguson/

I mean, really, Breitbart? Your intelligence isn't insulted by that rag? Maybe I've given you too much credit... I thought you were a clever shill but judging by your inability to keep up with the discussion in this thread and your tendency to use sources like Breitbart to support your arguments (despite also claiming you don't trust the media), maybe you really are just a gullible dumbass. Night.


Would have been nice if he would have spoken on Wilson's behalf and said he was sorry for his life being ruined for doing his job and unfortunately being the victim of the race baiting media.

[Nbadan]

Ferguson's State of Emergency Proves America's Social Contract Has Been Broken


What Ferguson has made clear, specifically, is that the social contract has been broken. With the expected grand jury non-indictment of Officer Darren Wilson likely to provoke renewed and righteous unrest, we are seeing nothing less than the state proving itself illegitimate.

I mean this in a very particular sense. When the decisions of a justice system are so repugnant to a significant mass of people that the state apparatus expects and must contend with popular unrest, then this political system has lost the grounds on which political legitimacy is based. When, on Monday, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency in Ferguson ahead of the grand jury decision, I like to think the ghost of Jean Jacques Rousseau looked on and whispered through the icy Missouri air, "Rise up."

Ferguson police emails reveal 'life is very rough' for officers. Read more here.

Rousseau's The Social Contract does not describe the modern democratic state. Yet the tenets of the 1762 treatise provided the framework by which we came to understand how political legitimacy resides in a democratic government. The social contract is broken, Rousseau stated, when a government does not represent the general will of the sovereign — the sovereign being the people, united — and when justice is not the expression of the general will of the people. And so, in Ferguson, where the National Guard must be called for fear that people will be moved to violence because of the decisions of our justice system, the social contract, it seems, is broken. This, for Rousseau, would be grounds enough for revolution.

https://news.vice.com/article/fergusons-state-of-emergency-proves-americas-social-contract-has-been-broken

..............To prepare for injustice is proof enough that it is already the status quo.....black people's lives aren't valued equally .....

[spurraider21]

preparing for potential riots = black lives aren't valued equally

ok

[Nbadan]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3TzPYZCAAAgf4o.jpg

[spurraider21]

http://m.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_05fbf85e-3d02-11e4-bbb3-5b590397aedf.html?mode=jqm

its hilarious that people keep regurgitating the same mistakes on different parts of this forum

[FromWayDowntown]

The fundamental idea is that you think we shouldn't all be the same under the laws. Some should get preferential treatment, while others do not, as "circumstances warrant".

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[boutons_deux]

compilation of whites being whites


https://imgur.com/gallery/rYd72

[Infinite_limit]

compilation of whites being whites


https://imgur.com/gallery/rYd72
Self hating White piece of shit. You are worse than Mike Brown








Meanwhile in San Diego. Blacks demonstrate on busy highway this morning. Punches thrown. Guilt stricken American Police with 0 arrests while emergency services, airport flights and work was directly effected

http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/kegstermd/Ferguson_zps1005981e.png

[lefty]

Self hating White piece of shit. You are worse than Mike Brown








Meanwhile in San Diego. Blacks demonstrate on busy highway this morning. Punches thrown. Guilt stricken American Police with 0 arrests while emergency services, airport flights and work was directly effected

http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/kegstermd/Ferguson_zps1005981e.png
Well if flights and shit are affected, then its good

That's what Murica deserves tbh:lol

[lefty]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3YrRpYCQAECcCB.jpg

[G-Nob]

I mentioned in another forum, I currently serve on a grand jury after I was asked to participate after being chosen for a capital murder case in April. Just so everyone knows, any preconceived notions there may be about this case or about the defendant or victim can't be brought into question. I can assure you, when you review evidence in a high profile case, above anything else, you want to get it right because the reality is, a person's life and freedom are in your hands. Anyone who has ever been in that position understands that reality. In the murder trial, even with all of the evidence pointed to the defendant, we wanted to make sure there was no question he committed the crime. We asked question after question to make sure the state gathered everything we asked for. Witness accounts are credible when the match up with the evidence. False witnesses are either discredited quickly or cave in to investigators. When multiple forensic pathologists come to the same conclusion, you have to give credence to the fact, there is no larger conspiracy. Does or has the prosecutor had any influence? No. Is the evidence presented to us in a slanted way? No. Any attorney on this thread would agree, the state wants a conviction. They have to present the evidence and they have to think further, 'how would a defense attorney discredit or insert doubt to any of the evidence?'. I wasn't in the room for the Wilson grand jury but I do not doubt, every person in there wanted to get it right once they saw pictures of the deceased. A new reality kicks in. And there is an over-weighing feeling to bring justice to a homicide than to prove innocence.

[spurraider21]

:lmao the hypocrisy is real

when there are one of these public white-on-black killings, a lot of conservative whities point to "lol you never talk about it when a black guy is the killer" almost to justify whats going on

and then the natural response is "why u deflecting from what's going on HERE"


now that we have a largely african-american riot situation, the tables have turned. people posting pictures of white rioters to justify whats going on

[CosmicCowboy]

I mentioned in another forum, I currently serve on a grand jury after I was asked to participate after being chosen for a capital murder case in April. Just so everyone knows, any preconceived notions there may be about this case or about the defendant or victim can't be brought into question. I can assure you, when you review evidence in a high profile case, above anything else, you want to get it right because the reality is, a person's life and freedom are in your hands. Anyone who has ever been in that position understands that reality. In the murder trial, even with all of the evidence pointed to the defendant, we wanted to make sure there was no question he committed the crime. We asked question after question to make sure the state gathered everything we asked for. Witness accounts are credible when the match up with the evidence. False witnesses are either discredited quickly or cave in to investigators. When multiple forensic pathologists come to the same conclusion, you have to give credence to the fact, there is no larger conspiracy. Does or has the prosecutor had any influence? No. Is the evidence presented to us in a slanted way? No. Any attorney on this thread would agree, the state wants a conviction. They have to present the evidence and they have to think further, 'how would a defense attorney discredit or insert doubt to any of the evidence?'. I wasn't in the room for the Wilson grand jury but I do not doubt, every person in there wanted to get it right once they saw pictures of the deceased. A new reality kicks in. And there is an over-weighing feeling to bring justice to a homicide than to prove innocence.

thank you.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://i.imgur.com/Zmyay5n.jpg

:lmao:lmao

continuing education

[spurraider21]

one of the dudes in the red shirt got dragged the whole way. shit

[Yonivore]

Well if flights and shit are affected, then its good

That's what Murica deserves tbh:lol
And, if an unarmed black teen dies in the back of an ambulance stuck in this (or similar) "protest," what does that mean?

[Yonivore]

Kudoes to CNN and Don Lemon for asking the right question.

Now, if we could just get the race baiters to answer it.

gQCVfoi0UkM#t=165

[CosmicCowboy]

Nothing says " I'm protesting for equal justice for blacks" like looting a liquor store.

[Yonivore]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/leader-black-protesters-ambushes-jesse-jackson-missouri

Video at the link.


"You've been marching all day long? We haven’t seen you marching all day long. Are you going to pay the bond of those brothers that’s been locked up?" the man asked Jackson.

"Are you marching today with us, or are you just going to sit in the car?" another man said.

"We ain't seen you," the first man said. "When you going to stop selling us out, Jesse? We don’t want you here in St. Louis. When you going to stop selling us out, Jesse?"

Jackson remained silent throughout the ordeal.
:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://m.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_05fbf85e-3d02-11e4-bbb3-5b590397aedf.html?mode=jqm

its hilarious that people keep regurgitating the same mistakes on different parts of this forum

That wasn't the same mistake. Do you need me to link the other conflation and compare and contrast for you?

[spurraider21]

That wasn't the same mistake. Do you need me to link the other conflation and compare and contrast for you?
knock yourself out. from my understanding it was the same mistake. both times people are claiming BackStoppers (whose president in McCulloch) was actively fundraising for Wilson

[Yonivore]

That wasn't the same mistake. Do you need me to link the other conflation and compare and contrast for you?

But, a mistake nonetheless, right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But, a mistake nonetheless, right?

There is one fundraising apparatus. It was used both for the charity the prosecutor was president for and Wilson's defense fund. The mistake before was saying that the prosecutor was head of the fund raiser but we don't know who heads it although it could be him. It's corporate occlusion.

[Yonivore]

There is one fundraising apparatus. It was used both for the charity the prosecutor was president for and Wilson's defense fund. The mistake before was saying that the prosecutor was head of the fund raiser but we don't know who heads it although it could be him. It's corporate occlusion.
So, you're just trying to create the appearance of impropriety. Got it. On the other hand, the man is a Democrat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, you're just trying to create the appearance of impropriety. Got it. On the other hand, the man is a Democrat.

So? I am not interested in party politics and understand that it diverges significantly at the local level especially in a place like MO. Just because I really do not like the GOP does not mean that I don't reject the democratic party too. You don't seem to understand that

That isn't an appearance. They worked for both parties. Frankly a police/DA structure of a municipality should not investigate and prosecute itself as it is by definition a conflict of interest. It is the same as teachers unions not what to be judged on merit.

[Yonivore]

So? I am not interested in party politics and understand that it diverges significantly at the local level especially in a place like MO. Just because I really do not like the GOP does not mean that I don't reject the democratic party too. You don't seem to understand that
Uh, I have absolutely no desire to understand you.


That isn't an appearance. They worked for both parties. Frankly a police/DA structure of a municipality should not investigate and prosecute itself as it is by definition a conflict of interest. It is the same as teachers unions not what to be judged on merit.
The dude handed over every shred of evidence to the Grand Jury, made every witness available, allowed them all the time in the world to deliberate, and gave them 5 indictments they could either find as true or no bill. Unless you can show he demonstrated a bias somehow, yea, I think you're trying to make up some crap out of whole cloth.

Was the prosecutor involved with the organization before the shooting?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh, I have absolutely no desire to understand you.


The dude handed over every shred of evidence to the Grand Jury, made every witness available, allowed them all the time in the world to deliberate, and gave them 5 indictments they could either find as true or no bill. Unless you can show he demonstrated a bias somehow, yea, I think you're trying to make up some crap out of whole cloth.

Was the prosecutor involved with the organization before the shooting?

Well you do have a penchant for making comments without understanding what you are talking about.

Yup and then his fundraising apparatus went to work for Wilson.

And quit being fucking naive. If you want an indictment that is not how you go about it. Aren't you a cop? You should know that.

The transcripts read like a defense examination without cross.

[CosmicCowboy]

You are wasting your time arguing with Fuzzy. He is a fucking idiot that actually fantasizes that he is intelligent.

[Yonivore]

You are wasting your time arguing with Fuzzy. He is a fucking idiot that actually fantasizes that he is intelligent.

CC, every character we type in this forum is a waste of time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are wasting your time arguing with Fuzzy. He is a fucking idiot that actually fantasizes that he is intelligent.

CC is still mad that I pointed out that rather than bitch about one of his employees getting hurt on the job maybe he should spend more time supervising and less time fucking off in his office doing things like trolling this forum.

Your work ethic sucks.

[Th'Pusher]

CC, every character we type in this forum is a waste of time.
Can't argue with that. Still, remember when you were so emotionally distraught after the last presidential election that you didn't post for two years? Then, the republicans took the senate and you started posting again. :lol

[Yonivore]

Can't argue with that. Still, remember when you were so emotionally distraught after the last presidential election that you didn't post for two years? Then, the republicans took the senate and you started posting again. :lol
If it makes you feel good, you can attribute my absence to that; what do I care?

Fact is, I checked in several times while gone and there was absolutely nothing interesting being posted in here. This midterm election was interesting, Michael Brown's shooting is, as well.

Unfortunately, I'm finding the same ankle-biters are still trolling the waters here and that, if any thing, there are fewer reasonable people with which to share opinions than before. So, I doubt I'll stick around much longer. Yes, you and Chump and Boutons, et. al. can claim to win the internet again. It seems to be all you have and I wouldn't want to deprive you of that source of pride.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If it makes you feel good, you can attribute my absence to that; what do I care?

Fact is, I checked in several times while gone and there was absolutely nothing interesting being posted in here. This midterm election was interesting, Michael Brown's shooting is, as well.

Unfortunately, I'm finding the same ankle-biters are still trolling the waters here and that, if any thing, there are fewer reasonable people with which to share opinions than before. So, I doubt I'll stick around much longer. Yes, you and Chump and Boutons, et. al. can claim to win the internet again. It seems to be all you have and I wouldn't want to deprive you of that source of pride.

I figured you were one of the grey names.

[Yonivore]

I figured you were one of the grey names.

What's that?

[CosmicCowboy]

CC is still mad that I pointed out that rather than bitch about one of his employees getting hurt on the job maybe he should spend more time supervising and less time fucking off in his office doing things like trolling this forum.

Your work ethic sucks.

He didn't get hurt and you just plain suck and are a lying piece of shit.


Call me out?

shit. You just continue to prove what a fucking clueless idiot you are.

[Th'Pusher]

If it makes you feel good, you can attribute my absence to that; what do I care?

Fact is, I checked in several times while gone and there was absolutely nothing interesting being posted in here. This midterm election was interesting, Michael Brown's shooting is, as well.

October of 2012 you were ranting about Benghazi (what did you think about the most recent report :lol), then you show up on election night AFTER the republicans took the senate. If the midterm election was so interesting, why show up when it's over as opposed to all the coverage leading up to it? And what was so interesting about it? Pretty boilerplate mid-term. Low turnout. Unpopular incumbent's party lost seats in congress.

:lol emotionally distraught that Mitt Romney lost to the Kenyan

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ Fuzzy feverishly using the search function trying to find some shred of evidence to back up his injury claim.

:lmao:lmao:lmao at the image of Fuzzy peevishly screaming at his screen when he belatedly realizes he is wrong...again.

His myopically childish behavior might even be amusing if he wasn't such an offensive lying little prick. Hopefully he will get laid/graduate from high school eventually and move on.

[Yonivore]

October of 2012 you were ranting about Benghazi (what did you think about the most recent report :lol), then you show up on election night AFTER the republicans took the senate. If the midterm election was so interesting, why show up when it's over as opposed to all the coverage leading up to it? And what was so interesting about it? Pretty boilerplate mid-term. Low turnout. Unpopular incumbent's party lost seats in congress.

:lol emotionally distraught that Mitt Romney lost to the Kenyan
Can't let go of that bone, can ya, Skippy? Get 'im boy, get 'im. Tear him up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He didn't get hurt and you just plain suck and are a lying piece of shit.


Call me out?

shit. You just continue to prove what a fucking clueless idiot you are.

You said you had an injury at a job site. I asked wtf you were doing here. You used to post here constantly duirng working hours including the time leading up to the accident. It is what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao @ Fuzzy feverishly using the search function trying to find some shred of evidence to back up his injury claim.

:lmao:lmao:lmao at the image of Fuzzy peevishly screaming at his screen when he belatedly realizes he is wrong...again.

His myopically childish behavior might even be amusing if he wasn't such an offensive lying little prick. Hopefully he will get laid/graduate from high school eventually and move on.

I haven't even bothered to look. You certainly are shrill though.

More bluster from the blowhard. You are a cliche frankly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's that?

Really?

[CosmicCowboy]

You said you had an injury at a job site. I asked wtf you were doing here. You used to post here constantly duirng working hours including the time leading up to the accident. It is what it is.

I never said I had an injury on a job site.

Another Fuzzy baldfaced lie.

It is what it is. Full of shit is full of shit.

[DarrinS]

You are wasting your time arguing with Fuzzy. He is a fucking idiot that actually fantasizes that he is intelligent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said I had an injury on a job site.

Another Fuzzy baldfaced lie.

It is what it is. Full of shit is full of shit.

What was it then was it a near accident? Either way you were still here fucking off rather than working and taking care of your employees and ever since I pointed that out you have become extra shrill and butthurt.

I would love to play poker with you. Boomer types such as yourself are so easy to bait into betting at you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh look another guy that spends his days at work fucking around on the interwebs butthurt at me. At least you aren't a lying piece of shit like Darrin, CC. You don't give a fuck and give no bones about it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Well you do have a penchant for making comments without understanding what you are talking about.:lol the irony

[DPG21920]

Oh look another guy that spends his days at work fucking around on the interwebs butthurt at me. At least you aren't a lying piece of shit like Darrin, CC. You don't give a fuck and give no bones about it.

Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

[spurraider21]

Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

Weird projection.

You never address my law enforcement policing itself is an inherent conflict of interest argument in both threads for all your bullshit about 'all cops are bad' and similar straw men.

[DPG21920]

Weird projection.

You never address my law enforcement policing itself is an inherent conflict of interest argument in both threads for all your bullshit about 'all cops are bad' and similar straw men.

Wood drastically... Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth. You got that from Vickers. "Work in Essex County", page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, you read some obscure passage, and then pretend, you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girl and embarrass my friend? You see, the sad thing about a guy like you is that in 50 years, you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: you dropped a 150 grand on a fuckin' education you could have gotten for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Regurgitating GWH and Memphis Grizzlies marketing. That is the capacity of the midget.

You wish you could show that I am not as smart as I think I am. Gonna have to do better than that, Francis.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You fucks make good minions though. Making up shit rather than addressing the obvious conflict of interest.

[boutons_deux]

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.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

iow, Wilson's buddy the prosecutor screwed the Grand Jury process to make sure the murderer got away.

[DarrinS]

Wood drastically... Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth. You got that from Vickers. "Work in Essex County", page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, you read some obscure passage, and then pretend, you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girl and embarrass my friend? You see, the sad thing about a guy like you is that in 50 years, you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: you dropped a 150 grand on a fuckin' education you could have gotten for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.


:lmao

[spurraider21]

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).
Respublica v. Shaffer had to do with calling a list of witnesses proposed by the defendant... not the defendant himself.


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.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

iow, Wilson's buddy the prosecutor screwed the Grand Jury process to make sure the murderer got away.
:lmao at you of all people taking Scalia's words to the bank

[Th'Pusher]

Cops seemed to be in a life threatening situation here. Shooting justified:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-cleveland-cop-shoot-12-year-old-tamir-rice-n256656

[TeyshaBlue]

Respublica v. Shaffer had to do with calling a list of witnesses proposed by the defendant... not the defendant himself.
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.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/

iow, Wilson's buddy the prosecutor screwed the Grand Jury process to make sure the murderer got away.

:lol at you of all people taking Scalia's words to the bank.








What else would you expect from thinkprogress.borg. smh

[Yonivore]

Really?

Yeah, never heard the term before.

[Yonivore]

Respublica v. Shaffer had to do with calling a list of witnesses proposed by the defendant... not the defendant himself.
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.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/

iow, Wilson's buddy the prosecutor screwed the Grand Jury process to make sure the murderer got away.

:lol at you of all people taking Scalia's words to the bank.








What else would you expect from thinkprogress.borg. smh
I don't think the prosecutor claimed he was acting pursuant to any right held by the defendant.

The problem for Michael Brown's supporter is that there just wasn't any incriminating evidence to present. The prosecutor gave the Grand Jury everything and, in their judgement, the evidence added up to a no bill.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I don't think the prosecutor claimed he was acting pursuant to any right held by the defendant.

The problem for Michael Brown's supporter is that there just wasn't any incriminating evidence to present. The prosecutor gave the Grand Jury everything and, in their judgement, the evidence added up to a no bill.
FuzzyLumpkins is privy to evidence that was held back from the grand jury. He's got an insider that goes by the name Shaun King.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, never heard the term before.

gnsf

[Yonivore]

gnsf

That one either.

[boutons_deux]

conservatives and n!gg@ haters always love this kind of lynching lawyering

St. Louis Grand Jury Indicted, Tried, And Convicted Unarmed Murder Victim Michael Brown

An Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant to inform the defendant of the charges against him or her. Accordingly, in response to arraignment, the accused (defendant) is expected to enter a plea, such as guilty or not guilty, or through their defense counsel, enter peremptory pleas laying out reasons why a trial cannot and should not proceed. A judge then determines if there is adequate evidence to bind the defendant over for a jury trial. To save time, it is not unusual for a Superior court judge to convene a criminal “Grand Jury” that hears prosecution evidence for why the accused should face charges and be judged by a jury of their peers. A grand jury does not decide guilt or innocence; just if there is enough evidence for a jury trial.

Apparently, the St. Louis County Prosecutor, Bob McCulloch, tasked with setting out reasons and evidence why an accused murderer, Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, should be indicted and bound over for trial decided to use the grand jury to mount a robust defense for the accused murderer. Not only did the prosecutor succeed in acquitting the murderer Darren Wilson, he convinced the grand jury to indict, try, and convict the unarmed murder victim Michael Brown.

Throughout the reporting on the progress of the St. Louis county grand jury looking into whether the prosecution had enough evidence to indict, and hold over for trial, murderer Darren Wilson, there were “rumors” that Wilson gave extensive testimony in front of the grand jury against the unarmed African American teen he gunned down.

The rumors were so incredibly unbelievable that one could not help but think they were just that; fallacious rumors spread by an ignorant press. As a citizen that has sat on two separate, year-long, criminal grand juries 12 years apart, it was beyond comprehension that a defendant would ever testify in front of the grand jury. It just does not, and never does, happen; at least not over the course of 27 different cases before the grand jury this author sat on.

At best, and at the prosecuting district attorney’s discretion, they may present exculpatory evidence that are “guesses” at what a defense attorney will present to convince the trial jury the accused is innocent; exculpatory evidence is unusual, and not mandatory, and precisely why a grand jury almost always (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) indicts the accused.

What is curious, indeed, is why the members of the St. Louis grand jury did not immediately appeal to the St. Louis county presiding Superior Court judge and report that the prosecutor was presenting evidence in the form of the accused’s testimony that Michael Brown was on trial and guilty. Prior to hearing evidence for why the accused should stand trial, a prosecutor’s job is informing members of the jury their only job is deciding if there is sufficient evidence to send the defendant to trial; not to determine guilt or innocence, and particularly not to find the accused not guilty.

Since the announcement that the grand jury indicted, tried, and convicted murder victim Michael Brown and found Darren Wilson innocent of gunning down the unarmed teenager, myriad legal experts, including the National Bar Association, have railed (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/robert-farago/national-bar-association-statement-michael-brown-ruling/) on the decision going so far as to call on the Justice Department to conduct a legitimate investigation.

In fact, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a 1992 Supreme Court case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1972.ZS.html) he elucidated that the role of a grand jury for hundreds of years has not been “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. 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.”

Compared to Scalia’s explanation of what a grand jury, and prosecutor’s, job is, it is worth looking at McCulloch’s final instructions before deliberations.

He said, “You must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.” These were not comments of a prosecutor seeking an indictment, but of defense counsel seeking “upon what foundation [the charges may be] denied.”

From the start of the sham investigation into the racially motivated, cold-blooded, murder of unarmed Michael Brown, the prosecutor was Hell-bent on acquitting Darren Wilson and indicting, trying, and convicting Michael Brown; Wilson executed Brown prior to the grand jury’s indictment, trial, and conviction. What is telling about the rampant racism and hatred toward people of color in America is the high level of support for Wilson and vile remarks against the unarmed murder victim, Michael Brown that followed the Wilson acquittal.

The only consolation, and it will turn out to be just that, for Michael Brown’s family, the African American community in and around Ferguson, and sickened Americans across the nation is that they are not the only people outraged at the “show trial” to acquit Wilson the grand jury put on.

Without a federal investigation, the entire world will know what a majority of Americans already are aware of; like everything in America, the criminal justice system, including the courts, are heavily tilted against people of color.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/28/st-louis-grand-jury-indicted-tried-convicted-unarmed-murder-victim-michael-brown.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

cheap political hack Scalia, typical shitbag nominee by Repugs, has probably forgotten or at least regrets he ever wrote his explanation of a prosecutor's role before a grand jury.

[boutons_deux]

Reefer madness: Prosecutors mentioned Mike Brown’s pot use 44 times in grand jury hearings

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/reefer-madness-prosecutors-mentioned-mike-browns-pot-use-44-times-in-grand-jury-hearings/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

The One Word That Kept Darren Wilson Out Of Jail (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/29/3597556/the-one-word-that-kept-darren-wilson-out-of-jail/)

But even if you accept Wilson’s account word-for-word, he only gets off because enough people found his actions “reasonable (http://online.wsj.com/articles/law-and-evidence-tilted-in-ferguson-polices-favor-1416950255)” under the circumstances. Since Wilson used lethal force, he acted “reasonably” if he “reasonably” believed his life was in danger.

What does “reasonable” mean? It means whatever we say it means. Ultimately our answer of what reasonable conduct entails is not defined by law, but a reflection of society’s majoritarian norms (http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=facpub).

These norms can and do change. For example, women asserting self-defense against their husbands used to be prohibited from discussing prior acts of violence by their husbands in court. Such acts were not viewed as relevant when determining whether a woman’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances. But over time, that changed and prior acts of violence by the husband can be used as part of a successful self-defense claim by a battered spouse.

Was Wilson acting reasonably?

He testified that Brown looked like a demon (http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/11/25/the_language_of_darren_wilson_s_testimony_close_re ading_the_demons_and_supervillains.html). A demon is a supernatural being associated with the devil. ( police union lawyers
coaching)

Is it reasonable for Wilson to perceive Brown, who was actually an 18-year-old human, in this manner?

Is it reasonable for such a perception to contribute to fear that ultimately justified taking Brown’s life?

Wilson also testified thatas he struck Brown with bullets he appeared to be “bulking up (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html?_r=0)” to “run through the shots.” ( police union lawyers coaching)

This seems like a common thing to happen in a science fiction novel. But is it a reasonable interpretation of the threat Brown posed to him, one that could justify continuing to shoot until Brown was struck fatally in the head?

The grand jury, in a flawed process (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/24/3596621/in-powerful-video-legal-experts-explain-why-the-grand-jury-in-ferguson-was-set-up-for-failure/), decided Wilson’s fear was reasonable. Many legal observers, however, think it was very likely Wilson would have been acquitted in an actual trial, and they are probably right.

But it has as much to do with our societal norms around police officers as the law itself. As a society, we are likely to give police officers the benefit of the doubt, even if they claim their victim was a demon who got stronger as he riddled his body with bullets.

There is nothing inherent in the nature of “reasonableness” or the law that makes things that way. In the United Kingdom, for examples, what constitutes a “reasonable” situation for the police to fire a weapon is much different. Many police officers in the U.K. don’t even carry firearms.

British citizens are 100 times less likely to be shot by the police (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/24/3474943/why-michael-brown-likely-would-not-have-been-shot-in-the-united-kingdom/) than Americans. Faced with a potential threat, British police officers are far more likely to engage in negotiation or use non-deadly force.

But we have a different definition of “reasonable” conduct in the United States. Our definition of that word, as much as any law, is what is keeping Darren Wilson from being held accountable for the killing of Michael Brown.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/29/3597556/the-one-word-that-kept-darren-wilson-out-of-jail/

The reasonable bar for a chickshit, dickless loser of a white cop is extremely low.

Blacks really don't stand a chance, even 12 year old blacks with toy guns shot in 2 seconds after cops drove next to him.

And SCOTUS5 RULES that "things have changed since the VRA '60s". yep, police have a LOT more and better weapons to shoot blacks with.

[spurraider21]

crofl. i've been in law school for about 4 months and "reasonable" is among the most used words i've encountered.

[boutons_deux]

African-American man stopped by Michigan cop for walking with his hands in his pockets


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/african-american-man-stopped-by-michigan-cop-for-walking-with-his-hands-in-his-pockets/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

bizarrely, black guy was not tazed nor murdered.

[spurraider21]

African-American man stopped by Michigan cop for walking with his hands in his pockets


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/african-american-man-stopped-by-michigan-cop-for-walking-with-his-hands-in-his-pockets/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

bizarrely, black guy was not tazed nor murdered.


smart guy. calmly took out a camera, was respectable, didn't escalate the situation, and nothing came of it. more people should follow those traits :tu

[Trill Clinton]

African-American man stopped by Michigan cop for walking with his hands in his pockets


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/african-american-man-stopped-by-michigan-cop-for-walking-with-his-hands-in-his-pockets/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

bizarrely, black guy was not tazed nor murdered.



so a brotha can't even shield his hands from the cold without some geek calling the cops. you must be kidding me.

[SnakeBoy]

so a brotha can't even shield his hands from the cold without some geek calling the cops. you must be kidding me.

We don't like it when you do that. So stop whining about it and get a pair of gloves. We would prefer that you buy the gloves instead of stealing them. Thank you.

[spurraider21]

so a brotha can't even shield his hands from the cold without some geek calling the cops. you must be kidding me.
that guy should be a role model. he handled the situation properly and courteously and the closest thing the cop did to assaulting him was giving him that gay high 5.


instead he could have started shouting "fuck this i didnt do nuffing you fucking pig" and started shit. good thing he didn't. he's a role model for the community

[Trill Clinton]

he handled it just like most people. only difference is the cop wasn't the usual cop scum that kills unarmed citizens. this vid should be sent to police departments across the united states to show policeman you don't have to pull out your weapon or threaten violence when the suspect poses no threat. hats off to that cop.

[Trill Clinton]

sean bell, oscar grant, amadou dialo never said fuck this pig and they were gunned down. doesn't really matter what a person says...its all on the cop.

[spurraider21]

he was compliant, answered questions, was calm and kept his cool. more people should be like him, instead of reaching for a guys weapon, neglecting commands, etc.

[boutons_deux]

St. Louis police officers’ group demands Rams players be disciplined for ‘hands up, don’t shoot’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/rams_screenshot-800x430.jpg

the St. Louis Police Officers Association condemned the display, calling it “tasteless, offensive and inflammatory.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/st-louis-police-officers-group-demands-rams-players-be-disciplined-for-hands-up-dont-shoot/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Fabbs]

We don't like it when you do that. So stop whining about it and get a pair of gloves. We would prefer that you buy the gloves instead of stealing them. Thank you.
:lol

[Fabbs]

so a brotha can't even shield his hands from the cold without some geek calling the cops. you must be kidding me.
a "brotha" can get back to his fake profile when he acts like he should around the police.

[boutons_deux]

he was compliant, answered questions, was calm and kept his cool. more people should be like him, instead of reaching for a guys weapon, neglecting commands, etc.

yes, massa, you da bossman, massa, whatever you want massa, I be doin it, I gwine obey, massa.

[spurraider21]

yes, massa, you da bossman, massa, whatever you want massa, I be doin it, I gwine obey, massa.
so are u saying the guy in the video was being an uncle tom?

:lmao

[Yonivore]

YEGxAcM0JcM
Rich Lowry's "lessons learned in Ferguson:"


“If you look at the most credible evidence [of Michael Brown's death at the hands of a Ferguson, Mo., police officer], the lessons are really basic. Don’t rob a convenience store. Don’t fight with a policeman when he stops you and try to take his gun. And when he yells at you to stop, just stop.”
I would probably add to that, "...you certainly don't turn and charge him."

[Yonivore]

I couldn't agree more, fuck 'em:

Do not rebuild in Ferguson (http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2014/11/do-not-rebuild-in-ferguson.html?spref=tw)


From a kid who survived the Hough Riots in Cleveland nearly a half century ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_Riots), some unsolicited advice to the business owners in Ferguson, Missouri: Do not bother rebuilding. Your customers do not want you. They tore up your stores — twice. And after one of them robbed a store. These are not protests. They are pogroms aimed at the middle class. Take the insurance money and run.

Police officers, too, should leave. Why risk a criminal trial or worse for doing your job?

Homeowners, too. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic — it does not matter. You are middle class. They do not want you. Leave.

[ChumpDumper]

Police officers, too, should leave. Why risk a criminal trialWhat risk?

lol class warrior

[Yonivore]

What risk?

lol class warrior
Eric Holder: Federal civil rights case against Ferguson cop will continue (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/11/25/eric-holder-federal-civil-rights-case-against-ferguson-cop-will-continue/)
I say fuck 'em. White police officers should refuse to patrol black neighborhoods and, if that means leaving for greener pastures, so be it.

[DarrinS]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/rams_screenshot-800x430.jpg



Lol, perpetuating the lie

[Yonivore]

Ferguson "Teens" Beat Bosnian husband and father to Death With Hammers; Media Suspects the Teens May be "Gentle Giants" (http://nypost.com/2014/12/01/teens-savagely-beat-man-with-hammers-in-random-attack/)


A group of teenagers used hammers to savagely beat a man to death in a random attack on a St. Louis street Sunday, according to police.

Zemir Begic, 32, was driving around at 1:15 a.m. in the city’s Bevo Mill neighborhood when at least three juveniles approached his vehicle and began wailing on it with hammers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.
The driver, a Bosnian immigrant, got out of the car to confront the assailants, who started yelling at him and pummeling him with the hammers, cops said. After the vicious onslaught was over, Begic — who had only been living in St. Louis for a year — was left battered and broken with injuries to his head, face, mouth and abdomen.

He later died at St. Louis University Hospital, according to the Dispatch.
I read another story where Bosnians peacefully protested the killing Sunday evening but, when the media showed up at the scene on Monday and found no one, they asked what happened to the protesters and were told -- they're at work.

[ChumpDumper]

Eric Holder: Federal civil rights case against Ferguson cop will continue (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/11/25/eric-holder-federal-civil-rights-case-against-ferguson-cop-will-continue/)
I say fuck 'em. White police officers should refuse to patrol black neighborhoods and, if that means leaving for greener pastures, so be it.How about getting fired and losing their retirement?

Would you consider that to be worth it, Yoni?

My suggestion is for whitey not to be so gleeful about killing people.

[Yonivore]

How about getting fired and losing their retirement?

Would you consider that to be worth it, Yoni?

My suggestion is for whitey not to be so gleeful about killing people.
Who's being gleeful?

[ChumpDumper]

Who's being gleeful?
Whitey.

[Yonivore]

Whitey.

Examples?

[Yonivore]

Tell me something Chump. Why is it that we always find ourselves arguing about race relations over cases that have nothing to do with race?

[Yonivore]

Deandre Joshua Identified As Man Fatally Shot During Ferguson Protests (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/deandre-joshua-shot-killed-protests_n_6225380.html)

http://i0.huffpost.com/gen/2324900/thumbs/n-DEANDRE-large.jpg


The man found shot to death in a parked car in Ferguson, Missouri, on Tuesday morning has been identified.

The body of Deandre Joshua, 20, was found at around 9 a.m. inside a white Pontiac with the driver’s side window shot out near the Canfield Green Apartments, USA Today reports. The apartment complex is near the site where Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown in August.

Joshua’s family members said they believed his death was related to the massive protests incited by a grand jury’s announcement on Monday night that they would not bring charges against Wilson for shooting Brown.

Police are investigating Joshua’s death as a homicide, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Even so, his grandmother, Renita Towns, has doubts about the amount of effort they’re going to put in.

"Police don't care — he's black,” she told USA Today.

Towns’ sentiments echo statements made by Leslie McSpadden, Michael Brown’s mother, shortly after the announcement that Wilson wouldn’t be indicted. “They still don’t care,” she said, addressing a crowd of supporters shortly before breaking into sobs. “They’re never gonna care. I’ve been here my whole life.”
So, will the protesters now turn to demanding justice for Deandre Joshua?

I mean, here's a young African-American murdered for simply doing his civic duty. He didn't rob a convenience store. He didn't fight with a police officer over control of the officer's service weapon. And, he didn't charge an armed police officer trying to effect his arrest. He merely testified in a Grand Jury proceeding. Of course, the HuffPo story doesn't speculate on which side of the debate Mr. Joshua's testimony fell but, one can imagine from his Mother's statements that what he told the Grand Jury did not fit the narrative being advanced by the protesters -- otherwise, why would she believe his murder was related to the violence visited on Ferguson by the protesters.

I'm sure the police will pursue the killers as diligently as they would any other murder. The problem here is that those responsible are part of a community that doesn't trust the police and, given Mr. Joshua was murdered for cooperating with authorities, how ready do you think anyone else will be to help police solve this crime? If his mother wants to blame anyone for what may come of the investigation into her son's murder, she should probably point fingers at those who instigated the violence in the first place.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol I bet the St Louis prosecutor actually tries to get indictments against the rioters and various criminals exploiting the situation.

That you keep posting that shit very eloquently points out how you miss the point.

[Yonivore]

:lol I bet the St Louis prosecutor actually tries to get indictments against the rioters and various criminals exploiting the situation.

That you keep posting that shit very eloquently points out how you miss the point.
What am I pushing? I agree, there will be prosecutions but, on the Joshua murder, it becomes problematic if you can't find someone willing to turn in a suspect...unless, of course, there is forensic evidence that will link a suspect to the crime. However, remembering the Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King verdict, there are still unsolved murders that took place in the chaos of the riots. That atmosphere makes solving this crime more problematic. Of course, that won't be admitted if this case goes unsolved -- it will all be because the police don't care.

C'mon, is it "shit" or eloquence?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Deandre Joshua Identified As Man Fatally Shot During Ferguson Protests (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/deandre-joshua-shot-killed-protests_n_6225380.html)

http://i0.huffpost.com/gen/2324900/thumbs/n-DEANDRE-large.jpg


So, will the protesters now turn to demanding justice for Deandre Joshua?

I mean, here's a young African-American murdered for simply doing his civic duty. He didn't rob a convenience store. He didn't fight with a police officer over control of the officer's service weapon. And, he didn't charge an armed police officer trying to effect his arrest. He merely testified in a Grand Jury proceeding. Of course, the HuffPo story doesn't speculate on which side of the debate Mr. Joshua's testimony fell but, one can imagine from his Mother's statements that what he told the Grand Jury did not fit the narrative being advanced by the protesters -- otherwise, why would she believe his murder was related to the violence visited on Ferguson by the protesters.

I'm sure the police will pursue the killers as diligently as they would any other murder. The problem here is that those responsible are part of a community that doesn't trust the police and, given Mr. Joshua was murdered for cooperating with authorities, how ready do you think anyone else will be to help police solve this crime? If his mother wants to blame anyone for what may come of the investigation into her son's murder, she should probably point fingers at those who instigated the violence in the first place.


Like I said repeatedly there were many witnesses that were scared to come forward with the truth for fear of retaliation from their own community. Looks like this brave man was one of them. May fuck be upon the savages who did this. This should be a wake up call to the all the good folks of Ferguson.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Of course Huffpo leaves out the race of the murderers when it is black on white. And of course the DOJ won't try it as a hate crime.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/30/st-louis-protesters-motorist_n_6245628.html


Protesters took to the streets of a St. Louis neighborhood on Sunday night to condemn the killing of a local Bosnian man by two teenagers with hammers early that day.
Police were responding as more than 50 people gathered in the area near Bevo Mill to mourn the death of 32-year-old Zemir Begic, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html). Demonstrators had blocked some traffic in the area, according to KMOV (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Homicide-investigation-underway-after-man-hit-in-head-in-south-St-Louis--284248091.html).

Another photo of Zemir Begic, 32, victim of fatal hammer attack in #STL (https://twitter.com/hashtag/STL?src=hash). Pictured with wife of six months, Arijiana. pic.twitter.com/TJ8R8eepOY (http://t.co/TJ8R8eepOY)
— joelcurrier (@joelcurrier) December 1, 2014 (https://twitter.com/joelcurrier/status/539236541894512641)


Begic was in his vehicle in the 4200 block of Itaska in the early hours of Sunday when the teens advanced on him and began damaging the car (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Homicide-investigation-underway-after-man-hit-in-head-in-south-St-Louis--284248091.html), police said. After Begic exited the car, the teens started beating him with hammers. Begic was taken to St. Louis University Medical Center where he was pronounced dead. He had injuries to his head, abdomen, face and mouth, the Post-Dispatch reported (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html).
Two males, ages 15 and 16, were taken into custody (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Homicide-investigation-underway-after-man-hit-in-head-in-south-St-Louis--284248091.html). Police were searching for two other suspects in connection with the death, the Post-Dispatch's Nicholas Pistor reported (https://twitter.com/nickpistor/status/539259676945563649).
St. Louis Metropolitan Police Chief Dotson vowed to increase vehicle patrols and add foot patrols in Bevo Mill in the wake of the attack, said a statement (https://nextdoor.com/city/post/8072397/) posted by Lewis Reed, the president of the St. Louis Aldermen Board.
The statement also announced a fundraiser (http://www.gofundme.com/i0hi58) to assist the family of victim Zemir Begic with funeral costs.
The demonstrations over Begic's death come amid the nationwide protests over the grand jury decision to not indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for the killing of Michael Brown on Aug. 9. Earlier on Sunday, protesters descended on the St. Louis Rams' stadium (http://fox2now.com/2014/11/30/ferguson-protesters-march-to-the-dome-during-rams-game/) to protest the Ferguson decision.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Arson and looting good.

Citizens volunteering to stop it bad.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-shut-down-mysterious-oath-keepers-guarding-rooftops-in-downtown/article_f90b6edd-acf8-52e3-a020-3a78db286194.html
FERGUSON • Following a night of arson fires and bashed storefronts that hit close to home, Greg Hildebrand stood naked Tuesday, drying off from a needed shower, when he noticed somebody on the rooftop.
“I opened the window and said, ‘Hey, can I help you?’” said Hildebrand, 35, a website developer.
The man said he was security and would be up there at night with others to protect the pocket of second-story apartments and lower-level storefronts near the Ferguson Police Department. A day earlier, rioters had broken out windows below Hildebrand’s apartment in the 100 block of South Florissant Road and torched a nearby beauty supply store.
“I am in the middle of a difficult spot,” Hildebrand said. “I feel a lot better having those guys up on the roof.”
But he wasn’t clear exactly who “those guys” were or where they came from.
Puzzled and alarmed protesters have wondered, too — some accusing the mysterious guards in military fatigues of being in the Ku Klux Klan.
In fact, they are volunteers affiliated with a 35,000-member national organization called Oath Keepers. Yale Law School graduate and libertarian Stewart Rhodes said by telephone from Montana that he founded the group in 2009 to protect constitutional rights, including those of protesters confronted by what he described as overly militarized police.
Police questioned group members early in the week and allowed them to stay. But Saturday, after media inquiries, St. Louis County police officers ordered the Oath Keepers to leave the rooftops.
Threatened with arrest for operating without a license, the volunteers argued but eventually left their positions early Saturday, Rhodes said.
“We are going to go back as protesters,” Rhodes said Saturday afternoon.
Rhodes, who said he is Mexican-American, stressed that Oath Keepers is not anti-government. He said the volunteers handling rooftop security in Ferguson were current or former government employees and first responders, many who have intense military, police and EMS training.


“We thought they were going to do it right this time,” Rhodes said of government response to the grand jury decision released Monday in the Michael Brown case. “But when Monday rolled around and they didn’t park the National Guard at these businesses, that’s when we said we have got to do something.
“Historically, the government almost always fails to protect people,” he added.
Justine Sharrock, reporting for Mother Jones magazine in 2010, wrote in an in-depth (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers?page=1) story about how the group is hard to pin down: “In the months I’ve spent getting to know the Oath Keepers, I’ve toggled between viewing them either as potentially dangerous conspiracy theorists or as crafty intellectuals with the savvy to rally politicians to their side. The answer, I came to realize, is that they cover the whole spectrum.”
In the wake of Monday’s grand jury announcement, Oath Keepers put out a national request to members to help in Ferguson. Volunteers showed up from Nebraska, Texas and Indiana. On Thursday, one volunteer had an “infidel” patch on his Kevlar vest and would say only that he came from “the north.”
They wouldn’t say how many people were part of the effort or exactly where they were placed. But they seemed to be mainly focused on a strip of South Florissant Road two blocks north of the police station that includes a Chinese restaurant, dentist office, bakery and the apartments.
“We were sick in our gut we couldn’t be here sooner,” said John Karriman of Joplin, Mo., a state leader of Oath Keepers who teaches police tactics. “We are here to volunteer our time and make sure everybody stays safe.”
Another leader, who would give only his first name, Sam, described himself as a weapons engineer from the St. Louis area who has done security contracting for the U.S. government. He said he was motivated to help after seeing a CNN story featuring extensive damage to Natalie’s Cake’s & More, (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/donations-roll-in-for-ferguson-bake-shop/article_afd76d1f-7d35-5d97-86bd-21d515277bfe.html)which also helped generate thousands of dollars in donations for the small business.
Sam said he contacted owner Natalie Dubose and told her he was going to secure her store and others.
“She started crying,” Sam said.
Oath Keepers boarded up a bunch of the storefronts and started night rotations on several rooftops. Sam said he vetted volunteers to ensure there weren’t any “racists” or “people with an ax to grind.” He said he picked volunteers who “have seen the elephant and are calm under fire.”
Fearing more arsonists, Oath Keeper volunteers kept buckets of water, fire extinguishers and other nonlethal weapons on the rooftops. Some are also armed with rifles that aren’t available at Walmart and Cabela’s.
The volunteers said they were well aware of the risk to life that arson can play and the legal right to stop it from happening.
Group volunteers say they are confident they have helped protect property and lives since they arrived.
Victor Clark, a dentist at Ferguson Dental on South Florissant Road, said he was happy to have the Oath Keepers’ free assistance. He wants to reopen his business soon. On Monday, rioters shattered the front door and window, and stole dental needles and anesthetic.
Then Oath Keepers showed up out of the blue. “We gave them our keys,” he said. “We didn’t know that much about them, but we got a feeling of trust. You have to do something to protect our building.”

[boutons_deux]

Former Cop Who Called for NFL to Discipline Players for Ferguson Solidarity Has Past of Lying to Protect Crooked Cops

A member of the St. Louis Police Officers Association (SLPOA) -- which demanded yesterday that the NFL discipline five players who marched onto the field at the opening of a game to show support for the Ferguson protestors -- was reprimanded and later fired from a Missouri police department for lying to cover up for another officer.

Shortly after the game, SLPOA business manager Jeff Roorda issued a statement asking for the NFL and the Rams to discipline the five players and compel them to make a public apology.

Roorda said: "Now that the evidence is in and Officer Wilson's account has been verified by physical and ballistic evidence as well as eyewitness testimony, which led the grand jury to conclude that no probable cause existed that Wilson engaged in any wrongdoing, it is unthinkable that hometown athletes would so publicly perpetuate a narrative that has been disproven over-and-over again."

According to court documents (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1333908.html), Roorda was fired from the Arnold, Missouri police department, where he served as a police officer for 11 years, for misconduct after having been reprimanded years earlier for lying in a police report. According to the documents, Roorda filed false statements in a police report about a suspect's arrest, in order to cover up for another officer. As a result of the false report, all charges against the defendant were dropped. Roorda was then fired after falsely accusing other officers of threatening and abusing him, according to the court documents.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/former-cop-who-called-nfl-discipline-players-ferguson-solidarity-has-past-lying

free speech and expression, as with Stand-Your-Ground (against big demon n!gg@s), is only for white folks

[TheSanityAnnex]

Roorda said: "Now that the evidence is in and Officer Wilson's account has been verified by physical and ballistic evidence as well as eyewitness testimony, which led the grand jury to conclude that no probable cause existed that Wilson engaged in any wrongdoing, it is unthinkable that hometown athletes would so publicly perpetuate a narrative that has been disproven over-and-over again."




I support the St. Louis Rams right to freedom of speech and expression but it makes them look like fucking idiots for making a gesture that Mike Brown never did.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Really surprised the SJW's have remained silent on the murdered witness and the murdered Bosnian.

[Trill Clinton]

Former Cop Who Called for NFL to Discipline Players for Ferguson Solidarity Has Past of Lying to Protect Crooked Cops

A member of the St. Louis Police Officers Association (SLPOA) -- which demanded yesterday that the NFL discipline five players who marched onto the field at the opening of a game to show support for the Ferguson protestors -- was reprimanded and later fired from a Missouri police department for lying to cover up for another officer.

Shortly after the game, SLPOA business manager Jeff Roorda issued a statement asking for the NFL and the Rams to discipline the five players and compel them to make a public apology.

Roorda said: "Now that the evidence is in and Officer Wilson's account has been verified by physical and ballistic evidence as well as eyewitness testimony, which led the grand jury to conclude that no probable cause existed that Wilson engaged in any wrongdoing, it is unthinkable that hometown athletes would so publicly perpetuate a narrative that has been disproven over-and-over again."

According to court documents (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1333908.html), Roorda was fired from the Arnold, Missouri police department, where he served as a police officer for 11 years, for misconduct after having been reprimanded years earlier for lying in a police report. According to the documents, Roorda filed false statements in a police report about a suspect's arrest, in order to cover up for another officer. As a result of the false report, all charges against the defendant were dropped. Roorda was then fired after falsely accusing other officers of threatening and abusing him, according to the court documents.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/former-cop-who-called-nfl-discipline-players-ferguson-solidarity-has-past-lying

free speech and expression, as with Stand-Your-Ground (against big demon n!gg@s), is only for white folks




yup, roorda was a crooked ass cop. doesn't matter, though.

[DarrinS]

Really surprised the SJW's have remained silent on the murdered witness and the murdered Bosnian.

What murdered witness?

[TheSanityAnnex]

What murdered witness?

Post #219 in this thread.

Deandre Joshua.

[DarrinS]

Post #219 in this thread.

Deandre Joshua.

Where does it say that he was a grand jury witness?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Where does it say that he was a grand jury witness?

It doesn't in that article, had me confused too.

Initial reports came out that he gave witness statements, his family is now saying he didn't, most likely because they too are now in fear.

Did a little digging on the witness intimidation that surrounded the case.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370776-interview-witness-14-1.html

Mike Brown's step dad was enforcing the hands up don't shoot narrative

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370777-interview-witness-14-2.html

A ton more here if you want to read through the whole thing.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370562-14-43984-care-main.html

[TheSanityAnnex]

witness #40 with damning testimony

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370734-witness-40-journal-entry.html

[spurraider21]

cursive is illegible

[TheSanityAnnex]

page 22 and on. Mentions the intimidation and Fuzzy's construction workers who never said he had his hands up surrendering.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370777-interview-witness-14-2.html

[boutons_deux]

shooting the big, scary, demon, unarmed n!gg@ was puny 6'4" Wilson's ONLY, FIRST tactic, as is usual with cops and n!gg@s. and you right-wing racists absolutely love it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

shooting the big, scary, demon, unarmed n!gg@ was puny 6'4" Wilson's ONLY, FIRST tactic, as is usual with cops and n!gg@s. and you right-wing racists absolutely love it.

It's amusing how you ignore the fact Brown punched Wilson and went for his gun.

[DarrinS]

shooting the big, scary, demon, unarmed n!gg@ was puny 6'4" Wilson's ONLY, FIRST tactic, as is usual with cops and n!gg@s. and you right-wing racists absolutely love it.

^One of millions duped by this highly credible witness

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/


It's sad that so much unwarranted violence and destruction was caused by this "hands up, don't shoot" lying P.O.S.

[TheSanityAnnex]

cursive is illegible

Page 2

I couldn't hear but they was the same kids I almost hit with car. A big one and a skinny one. The cop tried getting out and the big one hit the door the cop looked pissed and tried opening the door again. The big kid hit the door with his gut and the little one punched the mirror. Something gold fell on the ground. The big one is half in the window/door can't remember I swear the little one had the cops leg. I heard a noise. Not sure what the guy in the green shirt was yelling stop. The big kid pulled his pants up they was tan shorts and he started running. The skinny one took off in opposite direction. The cop got out left hand on face right hand on gun. The cop scream but I could not understand. Everyone was screaming. I heard lay yo stupid ass down I think it was a lady next to me. The cop was wobbling the big kid turned around had his arms out with attitude. The cop just stood there dang if that kid didn't start running right at the cop like a football player head down. I heard 3 bangs but the big kid wouldn't stop. I heard cop say something but not sure what or if he was just making noise. Cop took a couple steps forward then backward and the gun went off 2 more times. The last one on the top of the kids head. OMG the blood. The green shirt man grabbed my arm and said get your ass out of here.




This witness didn't live in the neighborhood so she was able to tell her story without fear of retaliation.

[TheSanityAnnex]

^One of millions duped by this highly credible witness

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/


It's sad that so much unwarranted violence and destruction was caused by this "hands up, don't shoot" lying P.O.S.

Dorian Johnson finally came clean and is now being protected by the police. Lot of angry people from the neighborhood that want him dead for not sticking to the hands up don't shoot narrative.

The media should be ashamed of themselves for stirring the pot in Ferguson and ruining a good cop's life.

[boutons_deux]

it's wonderful that you right-wingers rejoice, "the only good n!gg@ is a dead n!gg@"

[spurraider21]

Dorian Johnson finally came clean and is now being protected by the police. Lot of angry people from the neighborhood that want him dead for not sticking to the hands up don't shoot narrative.

The media should be ashamed of themselves for stirring the pot in Ferguson and ruining a good cop's life.
when was this? i haven't really followed much of anything for the past week. i can see you've done a bunch of reading though :lol

[pgardn]

St. Louis police officers’ group demands Rams players be disciplined for ‘hands up, don’t shoot’


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/rams_screenshot-800x430.jpg

the St. Louis Police Officers Association condemned the display, calling it “tasteless, offensive and inflammatory.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/st-louis-police-officers-group-demands-rams-players-be-disciplined-for-hands-up-dont-shoot/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29




Hands up, bull rush?

[Infinite_limit]

I support the St. Louis Rams right to freedom of speech and expression but it makes them look like fucking idiots for making a gesture that Mike Brown never did.
Rams should spare everyone time and just start packing for LA

[TheSanityAnnex]

Witness #10

More damning testimony

"Witness 10 elaborated about Brown’s position: “Half of his body, his feet was still planted on the ground, his upper body was inside the window in a leaning motion inside the window, his upper body was inside” (169:21). And while the witness could not hear what was being said inside the car, “it just looked out of the norm with somebody being leaned over inside the police officer’s car” (171:15). Witness 10 then explained that, after the firing of a shot, Michael Brown and his friend took off down Canfield Drive. Officer Wilson remained in his car briefly, and then pursued with his gun drawn — but not firing at Brown (177:15). Eventually Brown stopped.

According to Witness 10, Brown then turned and ran “full charge” toward Wilson:

He [Mike Brown] stopped. He did turn, he did some sort of body gesture, I’m not sure what it was, but I know it was a body gesture. And I could say for sure he never put his hands up after he did his body gesture, he ran towards the officer full charge. The officer fired several shots at him and to give an estimate, I would say roughly around five to six shots was fired at Mike Brown. Mike Brown was still coming towards the office and at this point I’m thinking, wow, is this officer missing Mike Brown at this close of a range. Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed…. (166:21-167:18).
With regard to the body gesture, Witness 10 explained: “All I know is it was not in a surrendering motion of I’m surrendering, putting my hands up or anything, I’m not sure. If it was like a shoulder shrug or him pulling his pants up, I’m not sure. I really don’t want to speculate [about] things….” (180:5). But “[i]mmediately after he [Brown] did his body gesture, he comes for force, full charge at the officer” (180:16). Ultimately, in the view of Witness 10, the officer’s life was in jeopardy when Brown charged him from close range (206:4).

Under Missouri law, this testimony by itself (even apart from any other evidence) would have provided a sound basis for the grand jury to decline to return any charges against Wilson.

[TheSanityAnnex]

FuzzyLumpkins get in here and spin this shit.

[TheSanityAnnex]

it's wonderful that you right-wingers rejoice, "the only good n!gg@ is a dead n!gg@"

It's amusing how you ignore the fact Brown punched Wilson, went for his gun, and then charged him.

You can't spin it anymore bouts, the testimonies are all available to the public.

[DarrinS]

MSNBC doubling down on "hands up, don't shoot", continuing to cite Dorian Johnson as a credible witness. Smh

[Nbadan]

:lol at the wing-nuts winning the battle and still losing the war....

[Nbadan]

Vietnam was still winnable too.....

:lmao

[Yonivore]

:lol at the wing-nuts winning the battle and still losing the war....
You should be crying that our society is so racist it can't reverse course and admit the truth when it becomes undeniably apparent their latest martyr for the "racial unrest du jour" turns out to have been justifiably shot an killed.

[Yonivore]

Vietnam was still winnable too.....

:lmao
We did win the Vietnam War. Democrats gave away the peace 2 years later.

[ChumpDumper]

Tell me something Chump. Why is it that we always find ourselves arguing about race relations over cases that have nothing to do with race?Nice try.