Ferguson Riots

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm saying that putting it through a completely atypical "fact finding" grand jury is a sham. If the prosecutor didn't think it merited charges, he should have explained why himself instead of holding a sham GJ to, in your words, cover his ass.

 

If you're so concerned about "taxpayer money" in the criminal justice system, you shouldn't be happy with an unnecessary sham GJ.

 

But you and I both know that him making a unilateral decision to not bring charges would not have been sufficient to appease people. You'd be crying about him being a corrupt prosecutor backing his friends at the PD.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Or, as others have asked for since the start, bring in an outside DA to evaluate and pursue the case.

 

I mean I don't have a problem criticizing them for that, I guess. That would have been preferable. But it still doesn't really change the evidence or ultimately what the GJ decided.

[StrangeSox]

But you and I both know that him making a unilateral decision to not bring charges would not have been sufficient to appease people. You'd be crying about him being a corrupt prosecutor backing his friends at the PD.

You're right in that I think there's sufficient evidence that a charge should have been brought. I'm explicitly saying he's being corrupt and providing a shield for the PD. He has a personal history that plays into it and a professional history of him doing exactly that.

 

But him using a sham GJ to cover his own ass is a separate issue still. He'd look bad unilaterally deciding not to bring charges, but he looks even worse with the sham GJ. Even what your partners said indicates that it was a sham from the start: they didn't think an indictment should have been issued; it easily could have been if the prosecutor wanted it; he was using the GJ as a cover to not issue the indictment.

 

You can think that charges weren't warranted while still believing that the GJ was run as a sham.

[StrangeSox]

I mean I don't have a problem criticizing them for that, I guess. That would have been preferable. But it still doesn't really change the evidence or ultimately what the GJ decided.

If a DA who isn't actively working to avoid charges being made is running the GJ, it very easily could have.

[cabiness42]

You're right in that I think there's sufficient evidence that a charge should have been brought. I'm explicitly saying he's being corrupt and providing a shield for the PD. He has a personal history that plays into it and a professional history of him doing exactly that.

 

But him using a sham GJ to cover his own ass is a separate issue still. He'd look bad unilaterally deciding not to bring charges, but he looks even worse with the sham GJ. Even what your partners said indicates that it was a sham from the start: they didn't think an indictment should have been issued; it easily could have been if the prosecutor wanted it; he was using the GJ as a cover to not issue the indictment.

 

You can think that charges weren't warranted while still believing that the GJ was run as a sham.

 

Of course it was a sham, the physical evidence + witnesses made this a case that the prosecutor should have simply decided that there would be no charges, but he was pressured politically to send it to a GJ. At least he didn't compound the problem by leading the GJ to indict and end up with a sham trial on top of it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Ezra Klein: Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.

 

What a s*** article.

 

"i'm not saying he's lying, i just find it difficult to believe!"

 

But the larger question is, in a sense, simpler: Why?

 

Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun? Why would he put his hand in his waistband while charging, even though he was unarmed?

 

NONE OF THIS FITS WITH WHAT WE KNOW OF MICHAEL BROWN

 

None of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown. Brown wasn't a hardened felon. He didn't have a death wish. And while he might have been stoned, this isn't how stoned people act. The toxicology report did not indicate he was on PCP or something that would've led to suicidal aggression.

 

Which doesn't mean Wilson is a liar. Unbelievable things happen every day. The fact that his story raises more questions than it answers doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

Yeah, it's difficult to believe that massive teenager who just assaulted a guy in a store would talk so disrespectfully to a police officer! Totally incomprehensible!

[StrangeSox]

CNN has been reading it from the official grand jury report all morning.

I just found the video clip of it.

http://therightscoop.com/cnn-analyst-reads...brown-shooting/

 

I'm not sure how you can conclude what she does there without more information. Brown was already shot and bleeding when he turned and ran from Wilson. How did they determine if the blood came from the initial wound or the subsequent wounds?

[StrangeSox]

What a s*** article.

 

"i'm not saying he's lying, i just find it difficult to believe!"

 

 

 

Yeah, it's difficult to believe that massive teenager who just assaulted a guy in a store would talk so disrespectfully to a police officer! Totally incomprehensible!

It's not about being "disrespectful" as much as it being cartoonish in what and when he said it. It's like Zimmerman saying Martin shouted out "you got me!" like something out of a bad Western.

[cabiness42]

I just found the video clip of it.

http://therightscoop.com/cnn-analyst-reads...brown-shooting/

 

I'm not sure how you can conclude what she does there without more information. Brown was already shot and bleeding when he turned and ran from Wilson. How did they determine if the blood came from the initial wound or the subsequent wounds?

 

He was already bleeding when he ran away from Wilson, yet where he ends up dead is 20+ feet closer than the farthest blood trail, so at some point he had to turn around and head back towards Wilson. If he was never coming right at Wilson, there couldn't be blood farther away.

[illinilaw08]

But why can't this be handled a little more delicately given the extreme pressure he's under on both sides? As I said before, he's got a city that rioted causing a national story. He's got the FBI and DoJ up his ass. I'm sure the state and White House have called wanting to be kept in the loop about things. His choices were to just get an indictment and take the guy to trial on relatively weak evidence, or undergo a more exhaustive grand jury proceeding to really see if there was a potential for a case here. And frankly i'm sure the drawn out grand jury proceeding was done on purpose to try and get everyone to calm down.

 

I really don't see a problem with the fact that he did this a little differently. It's not exactly unheard of, it's just not common.

 

Then don't take it before the Grand Jury period. Don't charge. The ultimate result is the same - community outrage.

 

What we have here is a community that doesn't feel served by the justice system. Who suspects that if the police made an arrest on conflicting stories (police say one thing, witnesses say another) that the prosecutor wouldn't have presented both sides of the argument. He would have gotten his indictment and moved on. That's the problem. Prosecutors try cases on weak evidence all the time. For right or wrong, the perception in the Ferguson community is going to be that the prosecutor did Wilson a favor and went out of his way to not get an indictment.

 

 

 

 

[cabiness42]

Then don't take it before the Grand Jury period. Don't charge. The ultimate result is the same - community outrage.

 

What we have here is a community that doesn't feel served by the justice system. Who suspects that if the police made an arrest on conflicting stories (police say one thing, witnesses say another) that the prosecutor wouldn't have presented both sides of the argument. He would have gotten his indictment and moved on. That's the problem. Prosecutors try cases on weak evidence all the time. For right or wrong, the perception in the Ferguson community is going to be that the prosecutor did Wilson a favor and went out of his way to not get an indictment.

 

No argument from me on that, based on the evidence, it never should have gone to a grand jury. The state mistakenly believed that a no true bill from a grand jury would have created less outrage than a unilateral decision by the prosecutor.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Since when do animals loot and riot anyway? Lol, that is an exclusive human action. And yes, the term animal is very loosely thrown at black people, not so much to other people. It is racist to say that.

 

Now if you say they're a bunch of idiots, no arguments here. Yeah, people are angry but to loot and riot your own community is not the smartest solution.

Edited November 25, 2014 by MexSoxFan#1

[StrangeSox]

Then don't take it before the Grand Jury period. Don't charge. The ultimate result is the same - community outrage.

 

What we have here is a community that doesn't feel served by the justice system. Who suspects that if the police made an arrest on conflicting stories (police say one thing, witnesses say another) that the prosecutor wouldn't have presented both sides of the argument. He would have gotten his indictment and moved on. That's the problem. Prosecutors try cases on weak evidence all the time. For right or wrong, the perception in the Ferguson community is going to be that the prosecutor did Wilson a favor and went out of his way to not get an indictment.

If we really are going to see prosecutors adopt a "conflicting witness testimony means no charge" standard, we should see huge drops in our prosecution and incarceration rates.

[T R U]

Since when do animals loot and riot anyway? Lol, that is an exclusive human action. And yes, the term animal is very quickly thrown at black people, not so much to other people. It is racist to say that.

 

Now if you say they're a bunch of idiots, no arguments here. Yeah, people are angry but to loot and riot your own community is not the best solution.

 

I have never heard the phrase "acting like animals" used to describe black people exclusively. I have heard it used multiple times in regards to unruly people, and race having nothing to do with it.

[StrangeSox]

He was already bleeding when he ran away from Wilson, yet where he ends up dead is 20+ feet closer than the farthest blood trail, so at some point he had to turn around and head back towards Wilson. If he was never coming right at Wilson, there couldn't be blood farther away.

ok, page 89/90 of this document:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/137...-volume-24.html

 

Note that this is the conclusion that a Grand Juror reached, not expert testimony, and the detective explicitly says he's not a blood spatter expert when asked by the Grand Juror if the blood could simply have splattered that far back from a stationary Brown*. I don't see the diagram they're referring to available anywhere, but the detective him or herself never definitively states the forensic conclusion the GJ drew.

 

*that's another way that this is not like a regular trial at all, GJ's ask questions, plus I can't imagine the detective's non-expert thoughts on the blood pattern would stand up in a real trial.

 

 

[MexSoxFan#1]

I have never heard the phrase "acting like animals" used to describe black people exclusively. I have heard it used multiple times in regards to unruly people, and race having nothing to do with it.

Everytime black people get screwed like they did yesterday and do the stuff they did, they get called animals for acting entirely human, animals don't loot and riot, doesn't make sense to me to call them animals. Why not call them idiots, morons, dumbasses? Animals? Really?

[cabiness42]

ok, page 89/90 of this document:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/137...-volume-24.html

 

Note that this is the conclusion that a Grand Juror reached, not expert testimony, and the detective explicitly says he's not a blood spatter expert when asked by the Grand Juror if the blood could simply have splattered that far back from a stationary Brown*. I don't see the diagram they're referring to available anywhere, but the detective him or herself never definitively states the forensic conclusion the GJ drew.

 

*that's another way that this is not like a regular trial at all, GJ's ask questions, plus I can't imagine the detective's non-expert thoughts on the blood pattern would stand up in a real trial.

 

Splattered back 20+ feet in a narrow, straight line? You don't need to be a blood spatter expert to know that is pretty much impossible. If a prosecutor tried to use that as his theory in prosecuting the officer, he'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Edited November 25, 2014 by HickoryHuskers

[T R U]

Everytime black people get screwed like they did yesterday and do the stuff they did, they get called animals for acting entirely human, animals don't loot and riot, doesn't make sense to me to call them animals. Why not call them idiots, morons, dumbasses? Animals? Really?

 

It has nothing to do with looting and rioting, I think we are all aware animals don't come into town in a group and attack the corner store. Its the careless behavior and unruly nature of their actions. Its not limited to looting and rioting, it could also just be my kid and his 3 cousins destroying my house over thanksgiving.

[Jenksismyhero]

Then don't take it before the Grand Jury period. Don't charge. The ultimate result is the same - community outrage.

 

What we have here is a community that doesn't feel served by the justice system. Who suspects that if the police made an arrest on conflicting stories (police say one thing, witnesses say another) that the prosecutor wouldn't have presented both sides of the argument. He would have gotten his indictment and moved on. That's the problem. Prosecutors try cases on weak evidence all the time. For right or wrong, the perception in the Ferguson community is going to be that the prosecutor did Wilson a favor and went out of his way to not get an indictment.

 

You have a community that thinks nothing more than "unarmed black teen dead, all cops hate black people." Evidence, trials, whatever isn't going to appease them. See: Martin, Trayvon.

[zenryan]

It has nothing to do with looting and rioting, I think we are all aware animals don't come into town in a group and attack the corner store. Its the careless behavior and unruly nature of their actions. Its not limited to looting and rioting, it could also just be my kid and his 3 cousins destroying my house over thanksgiving.

 

 

 

exactly.

 

just people looking for reasons to be offended and throw the race card around on this thread. just look at his argument, trying to say animals dont riot and loot. Really? Last time I checked, animals have been known to create havoc while with a pack mentality. Not so much different than what we witnessed last night.

[StrangeSox]

Splattered back 20+ feet in a narrow, straight line? You don't need to be a blood spatter expert to know that is pretty much impossible. If a prosecutor tried to use that as his theory in prosecuting the officer, he'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

I'm not exactly seeing "narrow, straight line" in that testimony. Another part of the problem with a GJ not being a public process. We don't have the diagram they're referring to yet, and we don't get to see the whole flow of how the trial went.

 

Even if it's not 20 feet, it's going to be more than 0 feet, right? So that immediately puts us at less than 20 feet of advancing towards Wilson. And we're also not sure of exactly where they're measuring to get the distance to Brown's body. Just to his feet? His torso? His head?

 

A real jury trial could help everyone, jurors included, make a lot more sense out of this evidence and what it actually means. As it is, we've got a grand juror drawing their own conclusion and a non-expert detective kinda sorta confirming it but not really because they rightfully said they're not an expert.

[StrangeSox]

You have a community that thinks nothing more than "unarmed black teen dead, all cops hate black people." Evidence, trials, whatever isn't going to appease them. See: Martin, Trayvon.

I know I linked to it a while back, but here's Randy Balko's piece again on why this community might not exactly have the best opinion of law enforcement.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-wat...s-from-poverty/

[Y2HH]

> . ---------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me

[StrangeSox]

If the ultimate result of this is that prosecutors across the country stop pressing charges in cases with much weaker evidence than this one, that's more important than an individual officer in a single case.

 

I don't actually expect that to be the trend, though, even for McCulloch.

[cabiness42]

I'm not exactly seeing "narrow, straight line" in that testimony. Another part of the problem with a GJ not being a public process. We don't have the diagram they're referring to yet, and we don't get to see the whole flow of how the trial went.

 

Even if it's not 20 feet, it's going to be more than 0 feet, right? So that immediately puts us at less than 20 feet of advancing towards Wilson. And we're also not sure of exactly where they're measuring to get the distance to Brown's body. Just to his feet? His torso? His head?

 

A real jury trial could help everyone, jurors included, make a lot more sense out of this evidence and what it actually means. As it is, we've got a grand juror drawing their own conclusion and a non-expert detective kinda sorta confirming it but not really because they rightfully said they're not an expert.

 

A real jury trial would require the prosecutor to create an absolutely ridiculous theory of the crime to try and wedge into the facts of physical evidence. I don't see that benefiting anybody.