|
I thought this was a good read. It's various legal minds weighing in on the fairness of the grand jury hearing.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.
What purpose does this statement serve? Are you saying that because black-on-black violence exists, we should not concern ourselves with a justice system that gives law enforcement the benefit of the doubt even in lethal cases? This is a lazy and frankly offensive argument. Indeed, no matter the statistics, a civilian should be able to trust a police officer -- whether or not they can trust violent young men of their own race. The tragedy here is that most people of color simply cannot rely on these authorities.
I don't honestly know how this should have been handled. I read the testimony of the officer and the key witness yesterday, and in my estimation it seemed like Mike Brown's behavior was erratic -- but that was no reason for him to die.
But to have a system that won't even indict the officer, that's the thing I'm uncomfortable with. If they're willing to protect a guy when there's this much controversy afoot, I dare not think what they get up to when no one is looking.
|
Disappointing.
certainly, but if there was a federal review board to oversight the conduct of these departments with the authority to insist on a prosecution of the officer then send in Feds to take out departments where a culture of killing unarmed citizens has serial killer level conduct all over it then justice might be viable.
I thought this was a good read. It's various legal minds weighing in on the fairness of the grand jury hearing.
if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Love some of the excuses for bad police work in the case. I particularly like no photos of the scene because the camera batteries were dead.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.What purpose does this statement serve? Are you saying that because black-on-black violence exists, we should not concern ourselves with a justice system that gives law enforcement the benefit of the doubt even in lethal cases? This is a lazy and frankly offensive argument. Indeed, no matter the statistics, a civilian should be able to trust a police officer -- whether or not they can trust violent young men of their own race. The tragedy here is that most people of color simply cannot rely on these authorities.
I don't honestly know how this should have been handled. I read the testimony of the officer and the key witness yesterday, and in my estimation it seemed like Mike Brown's behavior was erratic -- but that was no reason for him to die.
But to have a system that won't even indict the officer, that's the thing I'm uncomfortable with. If they're willing to protect a guy when there's this much controversy afoot, I dare not think what they get up to when no one is looking.
no, atrocious is right. I've been slacking off on my white people killing of late, primarily because I've been knocking over liquor stores between jobs. It's not easy being black, in order to keep those crime statistic numbers up and accurate, I've had to make up a few new crimes to commit while daydreaming at work. I know, I'm not supposed to work as I am wholly reliant on my government benefits, but they don't pay me enough to keep me in rims and the latest sneakers. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to kayak(no joke, it's pouring out there) across the street to rip tags off of matresses while loitering in front of a no loitering sign. I hope there are drugs I can enjoy along the way...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, atrocious is right. I've been slacking off on my white people killing of late, primarily because I've been knocking over liquor stores between jobs. It's not easy being black, in order to keep those numbers up, I've had to make up a few new crimes to commit while daydreaming at work. I know, I'm not supposed to work as I am wholly reliant on my government benefits, but they don't pay me enough to keep me in rims and the latest sneakers. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to kayak(no joke, it's pouring out there) across the street to rip tags off of matresses while loitering in front of a no loitering sign. I hope there are drugs I can enjoy along the way...You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.What purpose does this statement serve? Are you saying that because black-on-black violence exists, we should not concern ourselves with a justice system that gives law enforcement the benefit of the doubt even in lethal cases? This is a lazy and frankly offensive argument. Indeed, no matter the statistics, a civilian should be able to trust a police officer -- whether or not they can trust violent young men of their own race. The tragedy here is that most people of color simply cannot rely on these authorities.
I don't honestly know how this should have been handled. I read the testimony of the officer and the key witness yesterday, and in my estimation it seemed like Mike Brown's behavior was erratic -- but that was no reason for him to die.
But to have a system that won't even indict the officer, that's the thing I'm uncomfortable with. If they're willing to protect a guy when there's this much controversy afoot, I dare not think what they get up to when no one is looking.
You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to sell drugs so you have an under-the-table income. That way you can collect welfare checks. You DO have 6-10 welfare babies, right?
I don't honestly know how this should have been handled. I read the testimony of the officer and the key witness yesterday, and in my estimation it seemed like Mike Brown's behavior was erratic -- but that was no reason for him to die.Which "key witness"? How about the testimony of the other witnesses disagreeing with Wilson's story?
I read the testimony of Mike Brown's friend (whose name escapes me) -- it differed on some specific points from Wilson's testimony, but the general course of events seems clear enough. That said, I have not reviewed all of the evidence, and I'm not especially well-versed in the controversy.
All I am prepared to say is, from the information I have presently, it seems like even Mike Brown's friend was surprised by his actions that day. And yet, since he was unarmed, it is hard for me to believe that Wilson's life was in danger. But then, this is not mine to decide.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to sell drugs so you have an under-the-table income. That way you can collect welfare...no, atrocious is right. I've been slacking off on my white people killing of late, primarily because I've been knocking over liquor stores between jobs. It's not easy being black, in order to keep those numbers up, I've had to make up a few new crimes to commit while daydreaming at work. I know, I'm not supposed to work as I am wholly reliant on my government benefits, but they don't pay me enough to keep me in rims and the latest sneakers. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to kayak(no joke, it's pouring out there) across the street to rip tags off of matresses while loitering in front of a no loitering sign. I hope there are drugs I can enjoy along the way...You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.What purpose does this statement serve? Are you saying that because black-on-black violence exists, we should not concern ourselves with a justice system that gives law enforcement the benefit of the doubt even in lethal cases? This is a lazy and frankly offensive argument. Indeed, no matter the statistics, a civilian should be able to trust a police officer -- whether or not they can trust violent young men of their own race. The tragedy here is that most people of color simply cannot rely on these authorities.
I don't honestly know how this should have been handled. I read the testimony of the officer and the key witness yesterday, and in my estimation it seemed like Mike Brown's behavior was erratic -- but that was no reason for him to die.
But to have a system that won't even indict the officer, that's the thing I'm uncomfortable with. If they're willing to protect a guy when there's this much controversy afoot, I dare not think what they get up to when no one is looking.
*sob* Five..only FIVE!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why people are upset
There is a history of blatant cover ups from the department
In a department with a blatant history of coverups, the officer never filed an incident shooting report. He was free to wait for all of the evidence to come back, and then testify to an incident that could be carefully crafted not to contradict the evidence.
Several points of the investigation look more than a bit suspicious: no crime scene pictures because the camera was out of batteries. Seriously, we established that there was a convenience store within walking distance. This isn't a petty theft or grab and smash, this was an officer involved shooting. The lack of pictures are either an unimaginable level of incompetence or a par for the course cover up.
This is a police department that makes its budget on the backs of poor people by issuing fines and summonses. This also depresses the voter turn out in these areas as people are afraid to show up and vote less they get slapped with that 700 dollar fine + interest + court fees for walking while black jaywalking.
The prosecutor was somewhere between completely neutral and other defense attorney: defense + defense oddly enough doesn't get a conviction.*
People are not trusting the system because the system has demonstrated that it isn't trustworthy.
*i say this because it was handled more like a trial than an indictment, with all of the evidence laid out.
No secret my friend,you can get killed just for living in your American skin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sob* Five..only FIVE! weeps openly
Man, you just got played for a sucka. How you supposed to even know which kids are yours?
If there isn't enough evidence to indict, it doesn't mean the guy is not guilty (or guilty)...it means simply that there isn't enough evidence to indict.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.What purpose does this statement serve? Are you saying that because black-on-black violence exists, we should not concern ourselves with a justice system that gives law enforcement the benefit of the doubt even in lethal cases? This is a lazy and frankly offensive argument. Indeed, no matter the statistics, a civilian should be able to trust a police officer -- whether or not they can trust violent young men of their own race. The tragedy here is that most people of color simply cannot rely on these authorities.
I don't honestly know how this should have been handled. I read the testimony of the officer and the key witness yesterday, and in my estimation it seemed like Mike Brown's behavior was erratic -- but that was no reason for him to die.
But to have a system that won't even indict the officer, that's the thing I'm uncomfortable with. If they're willing to protect a guy when there's this much controversy afoot, I dare not think what they get up to when no one is looking.
That statement was in response to the posters comment that he feared for his relatives being gunned down by police simply for being black. The idea that police can simply go around and gun down black people piecemeal without any justification or reaction is an idiotic fantasy perpetuated by the anti-police crowd you typically find among the left wing.
While it is true that blacks are disproportionately involved in police shootings that has less to do with the fact that they are black, and more to do with the fact that while blacks are a minority, they commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes. Perpetrating violent crime is typically a good way to get yourself shot by police, regardless of color. You don't actually think police are less likely to shoot an armed/violent white criminal than they are a black one do you? If you do I fully encourage you to test that theory by threatening some police officers with a gun.
Regardless, with blacks committing the majority of violent crime it stands to reason that they do so primarily in their own communities, which leads to the majority of blacks being killed by other blacks as statistics clearly show and not by the mythical renegade KKK police.
Pointing out this flaw in that posters worldview is the purpose my statement served. Or in simpler terms: a reality check.
I thought this was a good read. It's various legal minds weighing in on the fairness of the grand jury hearing.
Hmmm. Seemed like the conclusion of the article was that while grand juries are normally a tool of the prosecution, getting an indictment was not the primary goal in this instance.
"But Richard Kelsey, assistant dean for management and planning at George Mason University law school, said that what makes this case more unusual is that Mr. McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment.
“More recently everyone has head the statement that ‘a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich,’” Mr. Kelsey said. “It is true that it is usually easy to get an indictment, but is that a just process? I would say no.”
...
"Lawyers say in general, grand jury cases are subject to pro-prosecution bias because a district attorney will try to summarize their case to obtain an indictment, possibly hiding some of the evidence. Meanwhile, the accused has no right to an attorney, to present evidence on his behalf, or even to know that his indictment is being considered."
I think the problem here was the the prosecutor acted as the defense in this case, rather then doing what he was supposed to - prosecute. I find it odd that they praise "fairness" when it is pretty obvious one side just threw in the towel.
I am statistically more likely to die in a car accident than from a snake bite.
Doesn't mean i don't take a walking stick and watch my feet when I go for a hike.
You don't actually think police are less likely to shoot an armed/violent white criminal than they are a black one do you?
I absolutely, positively, 100% think the police are statistically more likely to shoot a black person then a white person, given the same set of circumstances. Maybe it is different in other areas, but that seems to be the case where I live. For example, in my county, there was a wealth white guy in a wealthy area who SHOT AT POLICE WITH AN AK-47 - he left uninjured. Compare that with the black vet who was killed by police - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kenneth_Chamberlain,_Sr.
EDIT: Also, while I won't flag your post for racism Atrocious, you make several claims that are highly suspect. For example, while blacks may represent a greater percentage of convictions, there are no statistics for who actually commits crimes and at what rate.
|
|
You don't actually think police are less likely to shoot an armed/violent white criminal than they are a black one do you?I absolutely, positively, 100% think the police are statistically more likely to shoot a black person then a white person, given the same set of circumstances. Maybe it is different in other areas, but that seems to be the case where I live. For example, in my county, there was a wealth white guy in a wealthy area who SHOT AT POLICE WITH AN AK-47 - he left uninjured. Compare that with the black vet who was killed by police - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kenneth_Chamberlain,_Sr.
I fully encourage you test that theory by grabbing a gun and threatening some police officers then. Have fun.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is honestly something that's been terrifying me for a long time, and it's because I'm a person of color (half latino). What scares me is both that this man stated he would kill Michael Brown again if given the chance, to which he was paid 500k for that interview. With the support that he got, he was made a millionaire for murdering an innocent black teenager. Note that this was shot before the decision, he had NO worry in his heart that he would be in any danger.
Although I get that you don't want rioting, good thing white people only riot for a good reason.
Let's ignore ALL OF THIS THOUGH, it might make him seem guilty.
Let's also ignore all of this.
And the whole nine juror thing? Good thing no one else thought that was suspect.
I'm sure no one else in the world finds this abhorrent though.
"But just think, what would MLK say about this?"
"I'm sure it's really hard to indite someone though!"
"People are rarely punished for things like this!"
Some of you out there are just angry, and you're lucky you're able to be angry? Me, I'm scared. I'm scared that because some monster with a gun has a grudge against me for the color of my skin or the way that I dress that he can shoot me, get paid, get married, and live happily ever after.
If you don't think there was enough reason for him to be indited, you just don't care about the lives of people of color.
|
|
Minor detail: The grand jury was 12 people, 9 white and 3 black. Which apparently isn't too far off from St Louis County demographics.And the whole nine juror thing? Good thing no one else thought that was suspect.
Two things here:
1. So that's LITERALLY the only thing you have a problem with?
2. 9 is the exact number they needed to throw this out. That's not a coinsidence, and that DOESN'T coincide with Ferguson's demographic.
I fully encourage you test that theory by grabbing a gun and threatening some police officers then. Have fun.
Flippant comments such as this one both unpersuasive and unproductive. Or shall we demand you leap from a 50 story building to prove you'll fall?
Grow up.
There's no need to feed the troll y'all, we all see him for what he is.
Agreed. Comment removed. Might I suggest you do the same bugleyman...
As tempting as it is to respond, I don't want this thread to get closed like the Trouble in Fergietown thread.Thanks ShadowcatX
|
|
I fully encourage you test that theory by grabbing a gun and threatening some police officers then. Have fun.Flippant comments such as this one both unpersuasive and unproductive. Or shall we demand you leap from a 50 story building to prove you'll fall?
Grow up.
You're approaching this backward. I'm not contesting that I'll fall.
Yeah, it's been surprisingly civil, let's keep it that way.
|
|
1) About the only thing in your post. :)
As I said, a minor detail. I agree with the rest of it. At least on a somewhat casual glance. I didn't read all of all the links.2) That's also not true. IIRC, they would have needed 9 to indict. 9 for a particular charge, in fact. A supermajority to indict, anything else returns "No true bill."
Also, this particular grand jury wasn't seated specifically for this case, though its term may have been extended. It had heard other cases before, which were handled much more in the traditional "prosecutor throws out some evidence, asks for indictment on particular charges and gets it with little trouble" fashion.
I can't blame you for not going through all of them, everything about this situation has been so emotionally draining for me. I've been crying for about a day now over the fact that something like this can even happen.
Although I suggest anyone who wants to pretend like Darren Wilson shouldn't have been brought into court to read HALF of those links at most. If you can even get through that many before realizing how little they even tried to cover this up. And seriously, if I hear one more person say "they shouldn't have rioted" when I see the dumb crap that white people riot over...
"They're just monsters, destroying everything!"
There's a chance he will be brought up on federal charges, feel free to sign the petition for this.
Don't let this go, don't let another person's life be ended with no justice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fully encourage you test that theory by grabbing a gun and threatening some police officers then. Have fun.You don't actually think police are less likely to shoot an armed/violent white criminal than they are a black one do you?I absolutely, positively, 100% think the police are statistically more likely to shoot a black person then a white person, given the same set of circumstances. Maybe it is different in other areas, but that seems to be the case where I live. For example, in my county, there was a wealth white guy in a wealthy area who SHOT AT POLICE WITH AN AK-47 - he left uninjured. Compare that with the black vet who was killed by police - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kenneth_Chamberlain,_Sr.
worked well enough for the guy in ferries county.
I can't blame you for not going through all of them, everything about this situation has been so emotionally draining for me. I've been crying for about a day now over the fact that something like this can even happen.
I feel for you N. Jolly. I have a little history with the police in riotesque situations, and to have my very last name suddenly linked with injustice in so many forms is to say the least- depressing.
On the brighter side, at least this sparked international attention, and positive change often results from bad situations.
EDIT: And thanks for keeping the thread open, at least for now Mr. Lambertz. I realize threads like this are a drain on resources, with very little benefit, but I really appreciate the forum provided. Thanks!
...He wasn't indicted due to his testimony. If it was just his testimony, he would have been indicted.
The biggest reason were the supposed witnesses themselves. Many of them had to be lying.
Why?
Because their testimonies all conflict and sometimes say the opposite things. One states Brown Ran away, while another says he was walking towards and then collapsing towards. One says Browns hands never got above shoulder level, whilst another said that he had his hands raised above his head.
Even a poor defense attorney could get his client off with witnesses that conflict that terribly with each other. The stories conflict so badly, that none of them are considered truly reliable.
You can't get a conviction off of witnesses that contradict each other so radically!
Point blank.
If they indicted and charged, they'd have lost. The supposed witnesses did the case in themselves. There probably were some good witnesses, but the ones that had something to burn, something to try to push...who thought they were all that by trying to say something that wasn't true...they were the true downfall of the opportunity to indict.
Without reliable witnesses and a story that cohesively comes from them...it then falls to physical evidence.
That showed Brown's blood in the vehicle consistent with a struggle and shooting. It showed Brown's blood on the actual weapon as if Brown had his hands on it. The angle of the shots from the evidence presented corroborated that it was probably done in the manner that was stated by Wilson (and supposedly some other witnesses that refused to come out public due to fear that they would have retaliation done to them).
However, that doesn't mean Wilson was innocent, it simply means because a bunch of false witnesses botched this Grand Jury up so badly with their false testimonies, there was NOTHING to go on EXCEPT the physical evidence.
They more effectively botched the Grand Jury investigation up than anything a prosecutor or
The entire purpose is to see if you can actually win the case. You have to go with the most reliable witnesses...you can't just pick and choose a witness.
Otherwise, you could go and say...hey, I'm going to call this witness from NY and have them testify and basically perjury in order to get an indictment.
It sounds like you want an illegal Grand Jury from the sounds of it.
YOU HAVE to get the witnesses. If you are only going to have one witness, then that witness is going to be the officer. In which instance, the same thing would have happened since you don't have anything else to go on except their word and the physical evidence.
It was the physical evidence that solidified the idea that there was no case.
The prosecutor HAD to have witnesses MORE reliable than the officer (normally meaning at least two or three others that witnessed the scene, and didn't have conflicting stories to the point to make their testimony unreliable).
That they couldn't...speaks volumes.
What's worse, is that there were actually several witnesses that were reliable and whose testimonies actually were able to explain all the physical evidence. However, some refused to come forward because they felt threatened by the community if they did so.
Seeing how the police couldn't protect the community with the riots, I think those fears are justified.
However, it makes it much harder to prosecute when your reliable witnesses refuse to come out because they think they'll be lynched by a mob.
The prosecutor actually did a great job from what I can see. Wilson's story is rather...incredible at points...but it wasn't his testimony that did anything (despite what media would like you to believe).
The REAL stuff that made no case was the physical evidence. In order to beat that, you have to have someone more reliable than the officer giving testimony, and normally that means at least two or three that can correlate and be more reliable.
Finally, this is NOT a trial...this is more of a thing to see if there is even a case and if that case can be won.
This actually appeared to be open and shut from what I can see legally. The ONLY reason it even went to this point was public outrage combined with Federal pressure.
There was no case to begin with seeing the physical evidence. It's like going to a murder scene where you have a knife with a guy's fingerprints on it, the blood of the victim, the guys blood, a picture of the guy stabbing the victim, and a bloody footprint of his shoe.
That would be pretty open and shut that the guy was there, he held the murder weapon, assaulted the victim, and left evidence of himself at the scene.
We know some part of Brown was in the vehicle (illegal in and of itself in that portion of the vehicle), that he had his hands on the officer's weapon (also very suspicious and indicates that somehow Brown was going for it and trying to take it away), that there were shots, possibly also inside the vehicle itself (at which point, it indicates there is a struggle over an officer's weapon inside the vehicle...think about that...that indicates a positive that the officer is not only threatened at that point, but in a struggle for their life), and that there were multiple shots at the victim.
The physical evidence is VERY strong against Brown.
It would need a strong testimony to counter the physical evidence.
So a testimony stating that Brown never got close to the vehicle (is that the one that you are referring to) and was being peaceful...really doesn't hold water in regards to what we PHYSICALLY KNOW happened.
If you can't get a strong enough testimony on it's own...the next step is to get enough testimony that the witnesses are overwhelmingly supportive of other events.
Since there was no case that could be held up simply on the power of what should have been the strongest testimony, as that basically can be discounted, the prosecutor has to go outside that box.
The prosecutor is under NO reasons that they have to do this. That the prosecutor did, I think shows that the prosecutor went above and beyond anything that could be expected, and in fact was trying to actively do everything they could to get an actual indictment.
If you think the prosecutor was on Wilson's side on this one, your daft, or don't know what you are talking about in regards to these situations.
The prosecutor went from an open and closed case of there being nothing to even try to indict, to actually building something up against the physical evidence, if it was possible.
Wilson's testimony on it's own was weak enough that an indictment probably could have gone through, if that was all there was. The thing is, the PHYSICAL evidence against Brown was so overwhelmingly open and closed....there really was no case.
The prosecutor LITERALLY had to get an overwhelming number of eye witnesses to over ride the physical evidence in order to prove a case could even stand a chance.
This actually could have worked. If their stories had agreed with each other, you could be looking at having Wilson indicted instead of what happened. That is despite what the physical evidence shows. If you have everyone saying the same thing happened...it calls into question how the physical evidence is interpreted. It still leaves a major question of why the physical evidence says what it says...but if everyone says one thing, then you could have a case. However, their stories did not, and without anything else to go on...well....
I'd say the prosecutor was more than fair in how they handled the case.
Finally, the entire reason for this was to see if you had a winnable case.
Sure, the prosecutor COULD have tossed the physical evidence and simply gone on Wilson's testimony, pointed to the weakness of it, and gotten an indictment, but what good would that have done? Wilson's testimony alone without any other witnesses and the physical evidence probably could have led to an indictment.
is that the one witness you are referring to?
Of course, not only is that breaking justice and fairness rules, it helps no one.
All it would do is probably lead to an even worse situation, as there was no way to win this case with what was presented. Wilson would have the same situation anyways, as what came out of this, and you'd still have the riots.
Not only that but you have more expenses paid, and a drawn out process where even more riots and problems could occur in the meantime.
How would doing an unjust indictment help anyone?
This was overwhelmingly fair from what I've seen, and considering how strong the physical evidence is, the prosecutor was actually working as hard as they could to try to get an indictment that worked in line with justice and legal principles instead of illegally trying to get a pass.
Even more, I don't know if there's ever been this much transparency with the evidence in this point of the process. That is itself, pretty remarkable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
worked well enough for the guy in ferries county.I fully encourage you test that theory by grabbing a gun and threatening some police officers then. Have fun.You don't actually think police are less likely to shoot an armed/violent white criminal than they are a black one do you?I absolutely, positively, 100% think the police are statistically more likely to shoot a black person then a white person, given the same set of circumstances. Maybe it is different in other areas, but that seems to be the case where I live. For example, in my county, there was a wealth white guy in a wealthy area who SHOT AT POLICE WITH AN AK-47 - he left uninjured. Compare that with the black vet who was killed by police - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kenneth_Chamberlain,_Sr.
I'm not sure what case you're referring to.
Regardless I'm not interested.
You people may dismiss my posts are trolling if you prefer, but don't get upset with me when I point out that the most likely outcome will happen most of the time. Yes, you can probably find cases of white people not getting shot when they should have and black people getting shot when they shouldn't. This is what is known as anecdotal evidence.
The overwhelming body of evidence that is statistics doesn't support a police war on black people. I do however accept the notion that black people don't trust the police.
The fact that black people don't trust police is due to them being told their entire lives that they shouldn't, that the system is out to get them. I blame this on race-baiters like Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and their ilk.
Regardless, I'm done with this thread and further discussion serves no purpose. The justice system has ruled, the evidence supports the police officer. Case closed.