Ferguson Riots

[Jenksismyhero]

All bringing it to a GJ did was show that he was running a sham GJ. As your 2 partners said, it would be trivially easy to get an indictment if he wanted one. Running a sham GJ only further undermines the legitimacy of the justice system.

 

And getting a sham indictment and wasting tax payer money on a sham trial wouldn't?

[cabiness42]

Wow, you dragged out a comment from August 18. Impressive.

 

I wasn't referencing any comment from August 18, I was referencing the physical evidence in the case. Brown didn't have a gun, knew that Wilson had a gun, and charged him for 21 feet. In any other context, this is called "suicide by cop".

 

What I won't dispute is that there is a long history of terrible relations between law enforcement and the black community in Ferguson that led witnesses to either deliberately lie or just be delusional about what they saw, and for that reason Ferguson needs to own a lot of what happened last night, but in this specific case, Wilson got the outcome that he deserved, at least legally.

[Balta1701]

And it's entirely possible that all that started with one witness (the friend) and the rumor basically just spread through the crowd. You've already got people who told the media they witnessed the whole thing, and then apparently changed their statements and admitted they didn't actually see it.

 

Without knowing the person on the tape and whether that's direct knowledge, it's pretty meaningless.

The person yelling that was not anywhere near a crowd.

 

Also its worth pointing out that what you just said about unreliable witnesses is entirely true. Which is why we should apply that same standard to the officer's testimony.

[bmags]

And getting a sham indictment and wasting tax payer money on a sham trial wouldn't?

 

Why would it be a sham trial?

[Milkman delivers]

I'm absolutely fine with police wearing cameras. But be careful what you wish for. Those cameras will lead to more arrests and more tickets issued, not less.

[zenryan]

Why would it be a sham trial?

 

 

 

because there would have been 0% chance of any type conviction. only sending it to trial to appease the media and parts of the public. It would've been more of a slam dunk than the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why would it be a sham trial?

 

It's potentially a sham trial if there's little evidence and you're just getting an indictment because you can.

[Jenksismyhero]

The person yelling that was not anywhere near a crowd.

 

Also its worth pointing out that what you just said about unreliable witnesses is entirely true. Which is why we should apply that same standard to the officer's testimony.

 

I mean I think people do. The guy in his press conference last night made a comment that you take the potential-defendant's statement but know that it's self-serving. I'm sure the grand jury members were told that as well (or using common sense could understand that).

[Balta1701]

I mean I think people do. The guy in his press conference last night made a comment that you take the potential-defendant's statement but know that it's self-serving. I'm sure the grand jury members were told that as well (or using common sense could understand that).

Then it makes zero sense to present that officer's testimony to a grand jury, which is why it shouldn't have happened. In the setting of a court room, that officer could have had his testimony attacked under cross examination by an aggressive prosecutor and crazy things like him turning into the hulk wouldn't have been dignified as they were.

 

As that other quote said, it was a trial without a prosecutor. The defendant gave his testimony and there was no one to cross examine it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's your typical white liberal Gen X viewpoint of this:

 

http://gawker.com/bad-americans-cant-stop-...paign=tuesdayAM

 

Unarmed black teen murdered by racist cop in racist police department in racist country in racist state in racist country, and riots and violence and property damage are acceptable responses.

[Milkman delivers]

So, it's worth pointing out again that in realtime, right after the shooting, there is video of witnesses (not witness testimony later which I don't like relying on for either side, realtime video) of people running towards the officer yelling "He had his f***ing hands up". That was people's first reaction after seeing it happen.

 

I can't prove this to you in any way, but it is a regular occurrence where "witnesses" give false information at crime scenes. You can have a person shot dead in the street by another civilian, and some will feed you incorrect descriptions to help a criminal they don't even know escape. So, forgive me if I don't believe the people in the video you're describing.

[RockRaines]

The person yelling that was not anywhere near a crowd.

 

Also its worth pointing out that what you just said about unreliable witnesses is entirely true. Which is why we should apply that same standard to the officer's testimony.

Eh, at least we know he was there when it happened. But once again there should be another officer, a camera and audio to back all of this up

[Balta1701]

I can't prove this to you in any way, but it is a regular occurrence where "witnesses" give false information at crime scenes. You can have a person shot dead in the street by another civilian, and some will feed you incorrect descriptions to help a criminal they don't even know escape. So, forgive me if I don't believe the people in the video you're describing.

These 2 are standing by a car about a football field's length away from the shooting, away from a crowd, and they're yelling "he had his f***ing hands up" and putting their hands up. It's on tape as their original reaction to the shooting.

 

At the very least, people who say things about how the witnesses were coached in a crowd to say he had his hands up or that it was just a creation of the media are completely inconsistent with that bit of tape.

 

It doesn't prove he had his hands up, but it proves to me that's what some people said the instant after it happened. There's a reason why this case caught attention.

[Balta1701]

Eh, at least we know he was there when it happened. But once again there should be another officer, a camera and audio to back all of this up

There's lots of things that should happen but conveniently didn't on the way to where we got last night.

[bmags]

Eh, at least we know he was there when it happened. But once again there should be another officer, a camera and audio to back all of this up

 

Yes.

 

The bottom line for me, and no amount of "some people just be itchin to violencts" will really change my mind, is that a cop tried to stop an unarmed teenager from jaywalking and the unarmed teen ended up dead. Doesn't mean Brown acted polite and did not deserve to be arrested, but he ended up dead. That doesn't scream "I'm really good at my job".

[Milkman delivers]

These 2 are standing by a car about a football field's length away from the shooting, away from a crowd, and they're yelling "he had his f***ing hands up" and putting their hands up. It's on tape as their original reaction to the shooting.

 

At the very least, people who say things about how the witnesses were coached in a crowd to say he had his hands up or that it was just a creation of the media are completely inconsistent with that bit of tape.

 

It doesn't prove he had his hands up, but it proves to me that's what some people said the instant after it happened. There's a reason why this case caught attention.

 

That's quite a distance away. And as someone else pointed out, simply having his hands up doesn't constitute surrendering if he continues towards the officer.

[RockRaines]

Yes.

 

The bottom line for me, and no amount of "some people just be itchin to violencts" will really change my mind, is that a cop tried to stop an unarmed teenager from jaywalking and the unarmed teen ended up dead. Doesn't mean Brown acted polite and did not deserve to be arrested, but he ended up dead. That doesn't scream "I'm really good at my job".

In an ideal world a non-lethal item would have been used and there would have been backup there to crowd control. This is why the department, to me, should still be looked at. It was a fundamental failure of procedure from putting the guy alone in his car.

[Jenksismyhero]

Then it makes zero sense to present that officer's testimony to a grand jury, which is why it shouldn't have happened. In the setting of a court room, that officer could have had his testimony attacked under cross examination by an aggressive prosecutor and crazy things like him turning into the hulk wouldn't have been dignified as they were.

 

As that other quote said, it was a trial without a prosecutor. The defendant gave his testimony and there was no one to cross examine it.

 

The same could be said of all of the witnesses though.

[Balta1701]

The same could be said of all of the witnesses though.

Which is why we have an adversarial system with advocates on both sides who argue cases like this in front of a group of as-close-to-impartial people as we can find known as a "jury trial" where the people are compelled to evaluate such claims against each other.

[StrangeSox]

And getting a sham indictment and wasting tax payer money on a sham trial wouldn't?

I didn't say that. If the prosecutor thought it was a sham charge (he has a bunch of conflicts of interest, so let's take that with a grain of salt), he should have the courage to make the call and explain himself. He shouldn't run an obviously sham GJ in order to give himself a shield and then make himself look like an idiot in the press conference announcing the GJ's findings.

 

As it is, we already wasted "taxpayer money" on a sham GJ.

[southsideirish71]

Yes.

 

The bottom line for me, and no amount of "some people just be itchin to violencts" will really change my mind, is that a cop tried to stop an unarmed teenager from jaywalking and the unarmed teen ended up dead. Doesn't mean Brown acted polite and did not deserve to be arrested, but he ended up dead. That doesn't scream "I'm really good at my job".

 

A 6'4 300 pound man that you stop starts a physical altercation with you and then tries to take your service weapon. Tell me exactly how you disarm that situation with your training and tactics. There is a difference in acting impolite and a violent altercation.

 

[bmags]

May be alone here, but I don't think a trial, even with low chance of conviction would be a "sham trial". Part of the justice system is giving victims ('s families) their chance in court to make their case. There was enough there to charge, there was a lot of noise and reasonable doubt of innocence was high.

[bmags]

A 6'4 300 pound man that you stop starts a physical altercation with you and then tries to take your service weapon. Tell me exactly how you disarm that situation with your training and tactics. There is a difference in acting impolite and a violent altercation.

 

LOL. That's all I have to say to this.

[Balta1701]

A 6'4 300 pound man that you stop starts a physical altercation with you and then tries to take your service weapon. Tell me exactly how you disarm that situation with your training and tactics. There is a difference in acting impolite and a violent altercation.

An officer grabs at your throat, you hit him to get him to release, he pulls his weapon and fires hitting you in the hand, you flee, he continues firing after he stands up, you turn and put your hands up and he blows your head off. How does the officer avoid that situation?

 

I'm not certain this is how things went down, but I also don't know why I should believe the officer's version of events as you just did there.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which is why we have an adversarial system with advocates on both sides who argue cases like this in front of a group of as-close-to-impartial people as we can find known as a "jury trial" where the people are compelled to evaluate such claims against each other.

 

But if a jury of people couldn't find probable cause from mere factual statements of witnesses without lawyers picking them apart, what makes you think a trial, with a more stringent standard of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is going to be anything more than a complete waste of time and money?