Ferguson

[Commodore]

You should read the testimony of the only witness the prosecutor favorably quoted - claimed to police he was 100 yards away, but before the grand jury, claimed to have been 50 to 75 yards away. So it was inconsistent and he was far away, yet the prosecutor praised him for giving testimony inconsistent with many other witnesses. Witness number 10.

That is a pretty minor inconsistency and can be chalked up to a misjudgment of distance by the witness. And obviously the physical evidence (which the grand jury held in much higher regard than eyewitness testimony, and rightly so since eyewitness testimony is garbage and shouldn't even be admissible in court in my opinion) corroborated that and other witnesses' testimony within an acceptable margin of error.

I think you are putting too much weight on the eyewitness testimony and not giving proper consideration to the physical/forensic evidence, which is infinitely more reliable than any eyewitness (even officer Wilson himself). To the grand jury, the physical evidence did not show enough cause to believe any improper use of lethal force took place, regardless of what any of the witnesses, both for and against officer Wilson, may have said.

Was this handled improperly by the prosecutor? More than likely. But what I am mainly concerned with is was the right decision reached? I believe it was and so did the only people that really matter at all in this; the 12 members of the grand jury.

I also find it absolutely ridiculous that Holder is still pursuing a civil rights violation indictment against officer Wilson. Doing so elevates this circus to witch hunt levels and actually makes me question the integrity and possible racial biases of Holder. Although I am happy that most legal analysts, even the ones who think Wilson should have been indicted, feel getting that civil rights indictment will be extremely difficult since he wasn't indicted by the state and the federal government would have to show Wilson intentionally and maliciously violated Michael Brown's civil rights.

 

[dgfred]

sounded like you think innocent people better just take the beating and hope the cop doesn't kill them and if they resist you'd have no problem if the cop did kill them.

The only problem is:
If you resist you deserve the beating per the law. They carry sticks for just such a thing I think.

Your wife accused you of domestic abuse- you are innocent.
Cops come to your place to take you away per the law (here).
You resist because you are innocent... guess the rest.

Hopefully instead you can prove your innocence after a night in jail. Sucks... I know.

 

[Harv]

Do you see that this is a problem?

The witness against you in the 'resisting arrest' claim is the person who beat you senseless, and because of his occupation his testimony will automatically carry more weight then yours.

His testimony that deadly force was required will absolutely carry more weight than yours, being as you are dead and all.

This does sound like, "The story is ours to fabricate."

Going way back to page 13......

Just so you know, in LA county that will in fact get you shot dead. I recommend a belt if you ever come to visit.

Nobody seemed to argue with me that if I start to run hard then I will quickly grab the waistband of my pants so they don't fall down because I don't wear a belt - and that quick motion of the hand moving to hold up the waistband could well look like the hand reaching for a weapon. In fact, the response I got was this would get me shot dead.

"In the heat of the moment, it looked like he was reaching for a weapon."

The next time I talk to somebody who has been in a gunfight, I will ask if he is reaching for his weapon, if he would run straight at his opponent who already has his gun drawn or if he would run for cover.

About this case specifically, I have not studied the facts in detail because it is not my job to arrive at a judgement and nobody is asking for my opinion. My natural bias says the police officer was acting in self defense.

Something in the back of my mind wonders if he pulled his weapon too soon and that is why the confrontation ended the way it did.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If the choice is between the mob and those that keep the lights on, I support those that keep the lights on. If Watts, Los Angeles, or Ferguson is any indication, I will have chosen wisely.

Watts is before my time, and Ferguson has yet to be examined in the fullness of time.

If by 'Los Angeles' you mean the riots after the Rodney King verdict, there is no question whatsoever that many serious problems which had resisted solution for years, if not decades, were resolved in the wake of the riots and Los Angeles today is a much better place for it.

It is unfortunate that a vast number of those who were forced out of the LAPD are now members of law enforcement in other communities, including mine, so some surrounding communities, including mine, are worse off for it.

 

[Berzerker]

That is not quite what I am saying. If you are innocent or the cops are overstepping in some way, it is not wise, nor should it be encouraged, for a person to resist arrest or assault an officer. Accept what is happening and pursue your legal and respectable avenues of redressing the matter. There a myriad of rights groups waiting to take up your cause, whatever the case may be. It doesn't even had to be credible in any way.

Or you can resist with force and face a beating or death. The choice is yours, but particularly if the abuse of power is that of force to begin with, what makes you think that resisting won't simply escalate and that a beating won't turn into a shooting? I understand that it is hard to think these things through in the moment, but it is incumbent upon those who are likely to suffer the consequences to protect themselves from possible harm. If you are waiting for the system to be perfectly fair and reasonable...you can wish in one hand and crap in the other. See which one fills up first.

Sounds like advice to a rape victim, just lay there and take it then seek justice in the system (you consider lacking). If its incumbent upon those suffering the violence to protect themselves, how can they do that when you'd put 'em in jail for murder or assault if they put up a successful self defense?

Some cop beat the hell out of a black woman who was apparently disoriented and walking on or near a freeway. All she could do was feebly "resist" by holding her arms up as the cop sat on her pummeling away with punches. If he had killed her, what would you say about his fate? Justified homicide? Hey, she resisted!

Where do cops get their moral authority to act? It comes from us, if they exceed that authority and they get killed or hurt by their victim, thats the price we pay for having a just government based on the consent of the governed. But dont forget who the victim is, it aint the cop - he's the criminal.

 

[Kaitzilla]

...
I also find it absolutely ridiculous that Holder is still pursuing a civil rights violation indictment against officer Wilson...

He's currently still pursuing a civil rights violation indictment against George Zimmerman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...d2ebd2-498e-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.html

On Wednesday (October 1st, 2014*), a spokeswoman for the Justice Department said the investigation “is active and ongoing.”

Well, it's winding down, but the case is still technically open.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Was this handled improperly by the prosecutor? More than likely. But what I am mainly concerned with is was the right decision reached? I believe it was and so did the only people that really matter at all in this; the 12 members of the grand jury.

I think you should add to your concerns. Specifically this: Is this good result reproducible?

We have a carefully crafted system, which is supposed to not only 'get it right', but get it right in a specific way that has been accepted as the best way to get it right as often as possible. By 'getting it right' in his own chosen way, the prosecutor opens the question of whether his way is better, ie likely to have a better record of 'getting it right' than our current system.

The simple and glaringly obvious answer is that 'if the accused is a cop just don't prosecute the case properly' has a very high likelihood of getting it wrong in any case where the cop actually does something wrong. So shifting to this system should clearly be resisted. It was. The prosecutor, who has a record of using this system, was asked to step aside through every avenue within the system, and refused.

If we go from here with 'well it turned out right in the end' we are just sticking our heads in the sand.

 

[Berzerker]

The only problem is:
If you resist you deserve the beating per the law. They carry sticks for just such a thing I think.

Your wife accused you of domestic abuse- you are innocent.
Cops come to your place to take you away per the law (here).
You resist because you are innocent... guess the rest.

Hopefully instead you can prove your innocence after a night in jail. Sucks... I know.

cops aint exceeding their authority in that case, John and I are discussing a different situation where they are... like a cop beating the hell out of someone and then killing them if they resist the beating.

 

[Archbob]

I honestly don't know if I would have indicted Wilson in this case.
We have to decide whether what the police told was true.

If indeed Brown just robbed a grocery store, assaulted the storekeeper that tried to stop him, had a heated exchanged with Wilson, punched the officer in the face and tried to grab the officer's gun, I can't blame the officer for shooting him because if it were me, I would assume he's trying to grab the gun to shoot me.

How much do we believe in the account?

 

[Angst]

Nope, I'm the white guy.

Yes, I live in California USA.

I have been forced to 'comply or be shot' by a police officer who when directly asked if what I had done to upset him was a crime acknowledged that indeed it was not...in a parking lot, in broad daylight. Since he had immediately drawn his weapon as he got out of his car I had every reason to believe that he would indeed shoot me despite having acknowledged that I had committed no crime. Fortunately, by engaging in a clearly polite but very loud conversation I was able to attract a sufficient crowd, and lay out the case that they would need to make, so that had he shot me even the most diligent cop protecting prosecutor would have been hard pressed to get him off, so I survived.

See, that exact police behavior you're describing is incompetent. Of course people react irrationally if the first thing cops do is to draw weapons and threaten people on their lives.

 

[Borachio]

I do not. Perhaps, there are not enough blacks who want to be cops in Ferguson.

Perhaps.

The next obvious question you must surely be asking yourself, even as I type this, is: "Why aren't there enough blacks who want to be cops in Ferguson?" What's the answer?

I still don't understand why you don't think it's relevant that a mainly black neighbourhood has a mainly white police force, though.

It looks like the elephant in the room, to me.

 

[Saigon]

The problem is that there actually was a defense in this grand jury hearing. The prosecutor chose to 'present both sides'...a choice no prosecutor, anywhere, ever, would make. Whether the cop is guilty as sin, or absolutely in the right, the fact that the prosecutor was 'unable' to get an indictment is a clear indication that the system did not work.

The worst part being that people in StLouis county, who are familiar with their prosecutor and his history expected exactly this from him. Faced with a petition to recuse himself, signed by tens of thousands of people who did not trust him to prosecute the case, he refused and then made no effort to prove them wrong.

That's why it genuinely does not matter if the cop is guilty or not. The prosecutor abused the system such that we will never actually know.

Have you considered the possibility that the reason most police officers aren't indicted, is because most police shootings are justified? Not all, of course, but most?

 

[Berzerker]

I honestly don't know if I would have indicted Wilson in this case.
We have to decide whether what the police told was true.

If indeed Brown just robbed a grocery store, assaulted the storekeeper that tried to stop him, had a heated exchanged with Wilson, punched the officer in the face and tried to grab the officer's gun, I can't blame the officer for shooting him because if it were me, I would assume he's trying to grab the gun to shoot me.

How much do we believe in the account?

The only way I see the cop was "justified" (legally anyway) is if Brown stopped running, turned, and came back at Wilson. The blood stains should show if that happened. There should be a blood stain further away from where Wilson was when he fired the fatal shots and where Brown fell. Wilson said he was about 10 ft away from where Brown fell and the furthest blood stain was 25 ft from Brown, so it does look like the kid was coming at him.

 

[Commodore]

The simple and glaringly obvious answer is that 'if the accused is a cop just don't prosecute the case properly' has a very high likelihood of getting it wrong in any case where the cop actually does something wrong. So shifting to this system should clearly be resisted. It was. The prosecutor, who has a record of using this system, was asked to step aside through every avenue within the system, and refused.

On this we have already agreed. Should the prosecutor step down given his record of incompetence and possible corruption? Yes. Will he do it willingly? Nope.

However, his position is an elected position, so if the people really are extremely dissatisfied with him all someone has to do is run against him next time he comes up for reelection, and the people can then force him out of office with their vote. I believe his days are numbered and he's not going to be able to weasel his way out of this mess simply because of the sheer amount of trouble and negative attention it has garnered.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Have you considered the possibility that the reason most police officers aren't indicted, is because most police shootings are justified? Not all, of course, but most?

Maybe they are. As long as the judicial process is routinely abandoned if the accused is a cop we'll never really know, will we?

 

[Archbob]

So there is a high probability that Brown was coming back at him?

 

[dgfred]

The only way I see the cop was "justified" (legally anyway) is if Brown stopped running, turned, and came back at Wilson. The blood stains should show if that happened. There should be a blood stain further away from where Wilson was when he fired the fatal shots and where Brown fell. Wilson said he was about 10 ft away from where Brown fell and the furthest blood stain was 25 ft from Brown, so it does look like the kid was coming at him.

I believe that is exactly what one of the witnesses that was seen as 'more reliable' said.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

On this we have already agreed. Should the prosecutor step down given his record of incompetence and possible corruption? Yes. Will he do it willingly? Nope.

However, his position is an elected position, so if the people really are extremely dissatisfied with him, all someone has to do is run against him next time he comes up for reelection, and the people can then force him out of office with their vote. I believe his days are numbered and he's not going to be able to weasel his way out of this mess simply because of the sheer amount of trouble and negative attention it has garnered.

Unfortunately this is where racism does enter into the discussion.

I am not saying that Officer Wilson is a racist. I am not implying that this shooting was racially motivated. I'm not saying that the prosecutor's failure to attempt to prosecute was racially motivated.

However there is a distinct percentage of the population of StLouis county who would not hold his failure to prosecute a white officer for shooting a black man against the prosecutor in the next election. How large is that percentage? I make no estimate as I do not live there. In my town it is about forty percent of the white population. Add to that the cop apologists who would not hold a prosecutor responsible for failing to prosecute a cop no matter what the cop did, ever, and you have a very good chance of continuing his streak of reelections.

His last 'white cops shoot black unarmed criminals' abomination didn't keep him from being reelected. Far from it. Being a very effective prosecutor who goes mysteriously oh-fer on prosecuting cops never stopped him before.

Now, back onto my favorite dangerous ground...

The difference here is that even those racially motivated voters who would give him a pass for not bothering to try to prosecute Wilson have been royally inconvenienced and embarrassed by a suburb of their city having substantial pieces burn to the ground on national television. For that they are likely to be far less forgiving.

 

[Commodore]

Okay, I avoid using anything from Fox News as a source, but I heard this on television and the Fox News article was the least ridiculous source I could find on the matter:

Link

The New York Times, whether consciously or not, has just endangered Darren Wilson’s life.

With tensions running high in Ferguson over the lack of an indictment for Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown, the paper has published the officer’s approximate address -- the street and town where he lives with his new wife, who also is named.

Given the racial animosity unleashed by Brown’s death, given the rioting and the looting and the stores that were set afire, how can a news organization make it easier for some crazy zealot to track down Wilson?

So the New York Times decided to release officer Wilson's address just after it was announced he would not be indicted? That does seem a bit suspicious and I think Wilson should be allowed to sue the New York Times for putting him in danger. If anything actually happens to officer Wilson or his wife, I think the owners of the New York Times should be held criminally liable and charged as accomplices in whatever crime is committed against Wilson, his wife, or his property.

 

[JohnRM]

Sounds like advice to a rape victim, just lay there and take it then seek justice in the system (you consider lacking). If its incumbent upon those suffering the violence to protect themselves, how can they do that when you'd put 'em in jail for murder or assault if they put up a successful self defense?

That is frequent advice to rape victims, because it works. If you are pinned and cannot escape, resistance to your attacker becomes futile and will typically only escalate the situation. The decision has to be made as to whether or not you believe that the attacker will let you live afterward.

Some cop beat the hell out of a black woman who was apparently disoriented and walking on or near a freeway. All she could do was feebly "resist" by holding her arms up as the cop sat on her pummeling away with punches. If he had killed her, what would you say about his fate? Justified homicide? Hey, she resisted!

Indeed? Well, Darren Wilson must pay for it with his life! I'm convinced.

You are creating scenarios where a cop is already assaulting someone rather than the vast majority of cases where beatings only occur AFTER someone resists.

Where do cops get their moral authority to act? It comes from us, if they exceed that authority and they get killed or hurt by their victim, thats the price we pay for having a just government based on the consent of the governed. But dont forget who the victim is, it aint the cop - he's the criminal.

Of course, the cop is always wrong. Got it.