Ferguson

[onejayhawk]

do you mean
why won't those pesky protesters just go away?
they can not possibly have any thoughts of there own, without all the media generated hype....

If I had meant that, I would have said that. I grant that it's pithy enough.

"Full Definition of IMMINENT: ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one's head "was in imminent danger of being run over"

Someone who is running away is placing no one under an imminent threat.

It was a correct use of the term by your definition. Michael Brown was not running away from Ferguson. He was violence ready to take place.

That said, immanent works better.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ready to take place indeed. Like from a violent man who had just tried to kill a cop and was running down the street. Quite possibly ready to bolt into a home and take someone hostage. You just don't know, do you? Someone willing to assault a cop and try to kill him for no reason is capable of any sort of violence against anybody.

Total BS. That's like saying that because a football player tackles opponents on the field he could suddenly tackle anyone at any time, or that soldiers returning from a war need to be isolated for public safety. Getting in a violent altercation with someone clearly identifiable as a person of violence doesn't make the guy a danger to the average citizen passing by.

When Chris Dorner was popping cops the only recognizable effect on the safety of the general public was that cops started shooting random people in blue trucks.

 

[Smote]

The Ferguson grand jury farce seems like a "divide and conquer" strategy that sets people that don't understand grand juries against people that do, instead of having opponents be unified to the truth of police privilege - that police are practically immune to prosecution.

Let's face it:

Police > whites > blacks. Not any sort of intrinsic value thing- but rather, how protected each class is from punishment by the law. This is clear from how punishments are meted out in practice - blacks are punished most harshly, whites less harshly, and police the least.

Let the two bottom classes bicker over "race" or let whites bicker about "grand juries" but really, there's a potential to be unified against "police privilege" in escaping legal punishments when they make mistakes. This is in the interest of everybody, though it is more important to blacks because of the wide discrepancy of police brutality towards blacks compared to whites. However, making this directly about "race" clouds the issue - it needs to be about "privilege," in the eyes of the law. Nobody should have privilege over anyone else, in law or in practice. This means no police privilege over everybody, and no white privilege over blacks.

Obviously, this is hard to get rid of. But we could try, by raising awareness and making laws about it.

 

[onejayhawk]

The Ferguson grand jury farce seems like a "divide and conquer" strategy that sets people that don't understand grand juries against people that do, instead of having opponents be unified to the truth of police privilege - that police are practically immune to prosecution.

Let's face it:

Police > whites > blacks. Not any sort of intrinsic value thing- but rather, how protected each class is from punishment by the law. This is clear from how punishments are meted out in practice - blacks are punished most harshly, whites less harshly, and police the least.

Let the two bottom classes bicker over "race" or let whites bicker about "grand juries" but really, there's a potential to be unified against "police privilege" in escaping legal punishments when they make mistakes. This is in the interest of everybody, though it is more important to blacks because of the wide discrepancy of police brutality towards blacks compared to whites. However, making this directly about "race" clouds the issue - it needs to be about "privilege," in the eyes of the law. Nobody should have privilege over anyone else, in law or in practice. This means no police privilege over everybody, and no white privilege over blacks.

Obviously, this is hard to get rid of. But we could try, by raising awareness and making laws about it.

The problem with this analysis is that Officer Wilson genuinely did nothing wrong. This is beyond saying that he did nothing actionable in court. It is saying that he did not do anything worthy of condemnation. He did nothing wrong.

J

 

[Smote]

The problem with this analysis is that Officer Wilson genuinely did nothing wrong. This is beyond saying that he did nothing actionable in court. It is saying that he did not do anything worthy of condemnation. He did nothing wrong.

J

And I'm saying, it's not up for you to decide. Let's have a trial.

If you killed Mike Brown, do you think it would be just for you to not be tried for some sort of murder or manslaughter?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem with this analysis is that Officer Wilson genuinely did nothing wrong. This is beyond saying that he did nothing actionable in court. It is saying that he did not do anything worthy of condemnation. He did nothing wrong.

J

What is the greater statement of no wrongdoing, an acquittal at trial, or a prosecutor refusing to prosecute?

Hint:

Spoiler :

One of these gives you immunity to further consideration in the matter, the other does not.

 

[Zkribbler]

Michael Brown was not running away from Ferguson. He was violence ready to take place.

Some who's been shot once, who's running for his life is "violence ready to take place." Got it.

 

[MobBoss]

I notice you didn't quote my last paragraph, which essentially outlines my argument. The prosecutor may be legally entitled to scuttle his own case, but it is so far outside the norm that it defies the stated purpose of the grand jury. He had no reason to introduce evidence or witnesses that decreased his chances of taking the matter to trial.

Unless you can cite me something in the Missouri law code that contradicts what I just cited (showing no restrictions on evidence he shows the Grand Jury), I think your argument is invalid.

You said you studied the code. By all means cite me the specific part of that code that gave you that impression.

And I'm saying, it's not up for you to decide. Let's have a trial.

If you killed Mike Brown, do you think it would be just for you to not be tried for some sort of murder or manslaughter?

Likewise, it's not up for you to decide either.

Its up to the Prosecutor, or the Grand Jury to decide.

It was decided.

What people don't realize is there are actually a lot of cases don't go to trial because of a decided lack of evidence to convict. In this case, the vast majority of evidence supported Officer Wilsons account of events. There simply isn't any point of going to trial if there is zero chance of getting a conviction.

Some who's been shot once, who's running for his life is "violence ready to take place." Got it.

Grazed actually.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think what JS is saying is more that the prosecutor has the legal and moral duty to make the best case that he can, so showing evidence which prejudices his case is a sign of either malice or incompetence.

 

[MobBoss]

I think what JS is saying is more that the prosecutor has the legal and moral duty to make the best case that he can, so showing evidence which prejudices his case is a sign of either malice or incompetence.

Or wisdom, since such evidence will absolutely be part of any trial to be had regardless.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Or wisdom, since such evidence will absolutely be part of any trial to be had regardless.

Whatever you say bub. I'll bet every prosecutor goes into every case saying "well, since the defense might use this I'll just do it for them."

Being a cop apologist is like being a master yogi. I have never seen such pretzel like bending anywhere else. Do you even feel a twinge when you type such whopping misrepresentations of reality?

 

[Flying Pig]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's the job of the prosecutor or defence lawyer to present a balanced case. They're supposed to present a totally one-sided argument in the understanding that if they both do so then the judge and jury will be able to weigh up their relative merits and choose the stronger. By deciding to weaken his own case, the prosecutor took it upon himself to play the role allotted to the jury, therefore abusing the process. Is that not so?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's the job of the prosecutor or defence lawyer to present a balanced case. They're supposed to present a totally one-sided argument in the understanding that if they both do so then the judge and jury will be able to weigh up their relative merits and choose the stronger. By deciding to weaken his own case, the prosecutor took it upon himself to play the role allotted to the jury, therefore abusing the process. Is that not so?

Spot on.

 

[MobBoss]

Whatever you say bub. I'll bet every prosecutor goes into every case saying "well, since the defense might use this I'll just do it for them."

Being a cop apologist is like being a master yogi. I have never seen such pretzel like bending anywhere else. Do you even feel a twinge when you type such whopping misrepresentations of reality?

A Grand Jury is different than a regular Jury Trial. You do know this, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's the job of the prosecutor or defence lawyer to present a balanced case. They're supposed to present a totally one-sided argument in the understanding that if they both do so then the judge and jury will be able to weigh up their relative merits and choose the stronger. By deciding to weaken his own case, the prosecutor took it upon himself to play the role allotted to the jury, therefore abusing the process. Is that not so?

FP I posted the cite from the Missouri law concerning Prosecutor duties before a Grand Jury earlier in the thread. Tim will ignore that simple fact because it destroys his entire point. In fact the law says to 'give..information relative to any matter '. There is no limitation indicated of what evidence is shown to the Grand Jury in that cite.

Consider the prosecutors options here. The vast majority of the evidence in question (forensic and eventually even the witness testimony) supported Officer Wilsons version of events. If said prosecutor only showed the minimal evidence at his disposal to try and coerce the Grand Jury this was able to be indicted he literally doesn't get there anyway, but the process appears minimal.

If he goes the other way and allows the Grand Jury to examine ALL of the evidence at hand, the process appears far more thorough and complete with 100s of hours put in to the decision at hand. And lets face it, there was a lot of evidence to be considered in this case because of how it played out, but the reality is that most of it supported Officer Wilsons version of events.

Bottom line the Prosecutor is in a lose/lose situation regardless because he's been given a case he cant win because of the facts of the case. In this regard, I think the decision to allow the Grand Jury to see all the pertinent evidence involving the matter the right decision to make. If even a preponderance of the evidence had implicated Wilson as wrong, I think we would have seen an indictment, but this issue has been misrepresented from the beginning as something it's not. The whole 'hands up, don't shoot' thing was a lie from the very beginning.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A Grand Jury is different than a regular Jury Trial. You do know this, right?



FP I posted the cite from the Missouri law concerning Prosecutor duties before a Grand Jury earlier in the thread. Tim will ignore that simple fact because it destroys his entire point. In fact the law says to 'give..information relative to any matter '. There is no limitation indicated of what evidence is shown to the Grand Jury in that cite.

Consider the prosecutors options here. The vast majority of the evidence in question (forensic and eventually even the witness testimony) supported Officer Wilsons version of events. If said prosecutor only showed the minimal evidence at his disposal to try and coerce the Grand Jury this was able to be indicted he literally doesn't get there anyway, but the process appears minimal.

If he goes the other way and allows the Grand Jury to examine ALL of the evidence at hand, the process appears far more thorough and complete with 100s of hours put in to the decision at hand. And lets face it, there was a lot of evidence to be considered in this case because of how it played out.

Bottom line the Prosecutor is in a lose/lose situation regardless because he's been given a case he cant win because of the facts of the case. In this regard, I think the decision to allow the Grand Jury to see all the pertinent evidence involving the matter the right decision to make. If even a preponderance of the evidence had implicated Wilson as wrong, I think we would have seen an indictment, but this issue has been misrepresented from the beginning as something it's not. The whole 'hands up, don't shoot' thing was a lie from the very beginning.

There is also nothing directing the prosecutor to torpedo his own case. He asked the grand jury to assess guilt, not probable cause, to get out of a trial and by all indications the only reason would be that he was caught between 'I can't say there is no case because the public will flip' and 'I refuse to take a cop to trial even if I won't get a conviction'. So he got the grand jury to make a judgement of not guilty instead of determination of probable cause.

Were I on that grand jury, and since yes as I have demonstrated repeatedly I do know the difference between a grand jury hearing and a jury trial (thanks for asking, bub) I'd have made him miserable for it. I'd be using the power of the grand jury to investigate the prosecutor right about now. His miserable record for prosecutions against cops compared to how he prosecutes everyone else is certainly pointing towards probable cause that a crime is being committed, like violating peoples right to equal treatment under the law every time a cop may commit a crime and he appoints himself as the jury.

Hopefully the feds are about to haul him off to federal detention in the cheese factory. If by saving Wilson the trouble of a trial he finds himself in a cell I will laugh my head right off.

 

[Old Hippy]

Where are the protests over this incident? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/5yearold-girl-shot-while-_n_6123908.html

I think your missing the point that there are protests over some incidents...
and then wondering why riots develope when people are not listening to grievances.
people walking towards the police saying don't shoot and holding up there hands sends a clear message that some people see a real problem within there commuinty...

but you could start a protest movement yourself over this incident, you know, I suggest a tie in with the anti gun lobby, maybe a link with the people demanding higher standards from police departments like better community policing procedures could help with issues like this

 

[MobBoss]

There is also nothing directing the prosecutor to torpedo his own case. He asked the grand jury to assess guilt, not probable cause, to get out of a trial and by all indications the only reason would be that he was caught between 'I can't say there is no case because the public will flip' and 'I refuse to take a cop to trial even if I won't get a conviction'. So he got the grand jury to make a judgement of not guilty instead of determination of probable cause.

Were I on that grand jury, and since yes as I have demonstrated repeatedly I do know the difference between a grand jury hearing and a jury trial (thanks for asking, bub) I'd have made him miserable for it. I'd be using the power of the grand jury to investigate the prosecutor right about now. His miserable record for prosecutions against cops compared to how he prosecutes everyone else is certainly pointing towards probable cause that a crime is being committed, like violating peoples right to equal treatment under the law every time a cop may commit a crime and he appoints himself as the jury.

Hopefully the feds are about to haul him off to federal detention in the cheese factory. If by saving Wilson the trouble of a trial he finds himself in a cell I will laugh my head right off.

Again, allowing the Grand Jury to review all the evidence (and it has an absolute right to do so by the law I cited) is the right thing to do here. It's not 'torpedoing his case'. Without enough evidence to convict he doesn't have a case. And there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything.

Apparently your hatred of the police has clouded your ability to be rational here. I've shown you the applicable Missouri law applicable to this argument and it refutes your claims. You're personal feelings about it don't really matter.

 

[James Stuart]

Flying Pig has completely made my argument for me. The point of the grand jury is not to show enough evidence to convict in a trial. It is merely to show enough evidence to prove that a trial should take place. But by all means, continue to shift the goalposts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Flying Pig has completely made my argument for me. The point of the grand jury is not to show enough evidence to convict in a trial. It is merely to show enough evidence to prove that a trial should take place. But by all means, continue to shift the goalposts.

MobBoss doesn't shift the goal posts. He's pretended they were in the wrong place all along. Now he's upset because he can't just bluster people into agreeing with him, and he can't call down a higher authority to force us to.

 

[Berzerker]

What about it makes sense to you?

"You need to have a conviction"...well, until we have a trial we ain't gonna. Now what?

Conviction = belief

If it were 50 feet, that'd mean that Wilson was backpeddling as fast as Brown was running forward.

[I sure wish I could find the police sketches somewhere online. ]

From what I understand Wilson and Brown were ~30 ft from each other before Brown ran at him and ~10 ft when he fell dead. But shell casings were found east of Brown's body meaning Wilson must have been back pedaling.

How far is tough to tell from the overhead diagrams I found, but I figure Wilson was back pedaling slower than Brown's charge since the latter closed the gap from 30 to 10 ft, but Brown had to run further than 20 ft - more like 40 ft. That would mean Brown was running toward Wilson at roughly twice the rate of speed Wilson was retreating.

These diagrams aint the best but they show how the conflict began further to the east and moved west

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/photos-michael-brown-darren-wilson-grand-jury

the 2 identifiers furthest east are blood stains from Brown as he stopped and turned to face Wilson, the shell casings furthest east must have been the first fired and the pattern of casings migrates west as Wilson fired while moving away from Brown.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2

here's another that combines the two

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...read-with-evidence-links-mike-brown-shooting/

The last link shows the actual measurements from a baseline east of the confrontation

blood stains at 26'7" and 32'
shell casings begin at 33'4" up to 56'
Brown's body is at ~50'

so Brown ran about 25' and Wilson retreated ~22'
course the casings get sprayed around after leaving the gun so those are just estimates, it looks like they were closer together when the first shots were fired

so much for my 40-50 ft