Ferguson

[onejayhawk]

Long since asked and answered. As the saying goes, keep up or keep out.

Not answered.

The ony thing that has been said is that here was a body. That is NOT something that was done wrong.

Keep up or keep out.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Bull. Name one witness who claims to have seen anything that transpired within the vehicle, where Wilson alleges that Brown went for his gun, much less that anyone corroborates, or was in any position to corroborate, that Brown went for the gun before Wilson did.

You saying there is a crime does not make it so.

The Grand Jury ruled. That does mean that nothing criminal occurred.

You are rebutted.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You saying there is a crime does not make it so.

The Grand Jury ruled. That does mean that nothing criminal occurred.

You are rebutted.

J

I said nothing about crimes. I said that anyone who says definitively that 'Brown went for the gun before Wilson' is blatantly making stuff up, because no one knows that. No evidence for or against that is available, or was available to the grand jury. The grand jury ruled not to indict. That does not in any way mean that everything said in defense of, or by, officer Wilson is truth.

Come to that Wilson himself claims to 'have taken two to the face' and been 'one punch away from dying', so his own testimony on the sequence of events in regards to going for the gun is far from solid, and he is the only witness, since he shot the other one.

As to your 'what did Wilson do wrong' repetitious question, since you apparently can't seem to find it I will say again that at the very least by putting himself in a vulnerable position while making a routine investigative stop he created a situation that he ultimately had to shoot his way out of...leaving a man dead. Since I cannot begin to believe that he made that investigative stop in anything remotely the way he or any other officer is trained I call it bad policing...minimum.

 

[onejayhawk]

I said nothing about crimes. I said that anyone who says definitively that 'Brown went for the gun before Wilson' is blatantly making stuff up, because no one knows that. No evidence for or against that is available, or was available to the grand jury. The grand jury ruled not to indict. That does not in any way mean that everything said in defense of, or by, officer Wilson is truth.

Come to that Wilson himself claims to 'have taken two to the face' and been 'one punch away from dying', so his own testimony on the sequence of events in regards to going for the gun is far from solid, and he is the only witness, since he shot the other one.

As to your 'what did Wilson do wrong' repetitious question, since you apparently can't seem to find it I will say again that at the very least by putting himself in a vulnerable position while making a routine investigative stop he created a situation that he ultimately had to shoot his way out of...leaving a man dead. Since I cannot begin to believe that he made that investigative stop in anything remotely the way he or any other officer is trained I call it bad policing...minimum.

Again, so what? You have not answered the very repetitious question adequately. Hence the repetition.

So things might have been done differently. So you think Officer Wilson is incompetent, poorly trained, badly disciplined or all of the above. You are entitled to your opinion.

That does not change the simple fact that Officer Wilson did his job. You stand rebutted by the legal authority in this matter, the Grand Jury. Constantly saying that your opinion is fact does not make it so.

You may think that the various police departments are shooting too many black men. This was not one of those times. This is not one of the times where police used excessive force. This is one of those times when a kid got himself killed by doing something stupid.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Again, so what? You have not answered the very repetitious question adequately. Hence the repetition.

So things might have been done differently. So you think Officer Wilson is incompetent, poorly trained, badly disciplined or all of the above. You are entitled to your opinion.

That does not change the simple fact that Officer Wilson did his job. You stand rebutted by the legal authority in this matter, the Grand Jury. Constantly saying that your opinion is fact does not make it so.

You may think that the various police departments are shooting too many black men. This was not one of those times. This is not one of the times where police used excessive force. This is one of those times when a kid got himself killed by doing something stupid.

J

It is also yet another case where a prosecutor looked at an accused person and said 'oh, hey, a cop...I won't do my job here.'

And despite your interests in justice you are apparently okay with that.

Why?

 

[Snorrius]

Let's hope freedom-loving black people of USA will throw away the oppressorship of the State and will project the USA in peaceful prosperity in renewed society!

 

[Smote]

You saying there is a crime does not make it so.

The Grand Jury ruled. That does mean that nothing criminal occurred.

You are rebutted.

J

No, it doesn't. There was no trial, and thus there was no decision that anything criminal occurred or didn't occur. Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to grand juries. He could easily still be tried, if the prosecutor wanted to. But he doesn't, despite someone getting killed. And that's the problem, which is entirely worthy of getting upset over.

I can understand how you came to this opinion, but it is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how grand juries are organized.
Grand juries are a tool for prosecutors to establish probable cause via jury instead of via judge/pretrial. Alternatively, grand juries can run their own investigations if they believe the prosecutor is incompetent.

This grand jury was misled by the prosecutor, to create the illusion of a trial for the uneducated masses, when in fact none took place. What sort of demented trial has no judge or defense lawyer present, with nobody to correct misrepresentations of the law by the prosecutor? None. Because that would be unethical.

Watch this to see how the prosecutor deceived the grand jury:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

 

[Commodore]

This is a widely held perspective. Could you speculate on these situations briefly? Your life depends on police action...how exactly does that come about?

If you are a murder victim and the police "solve the crime" you are still dead.

If you are robbed at gunpoint and the police arrive on scene in an amazingly timely fashion and the robber flees at the sound of sirens, the only reason you are alive to hear the sirens is because the robber wanted to not kill you. If he didn't care one way or the other, killing you and stripping your corpse is far more efficient and lower risk, so the 'timely arrival of police' didn't actually save you. In fact the sudden onset of sirens may prompt a robber who wouldn't have shot you to panic and do so.

If you fall out in a public place and need cpr you are far more likely to be saved by an emt or fireman, and even far more likely than that you better count on some cpr trained passerby.

If you have created such a toxic relationship that another person has become your deadly enemy and they are closing in for the kill, well first, shame on you, but second, if you don't have any means of dealing with it other than 'I hope the cops get here and save me' you are probably going to die.

If a bear wanders down from the hills into your back yard because of the drought and starts drinking from your swimming pool, it is actually animal control officers who should be 'saving' you, and if you stay in your house it won't be your life they are saving it will maybe be your patio furniture. (This for fans of the cops who recently shot a bear that was mauling the homeowner who went out to film said bear immediately after calling 911...admittedly the cops got there first and did save his life...to the detriment of the gene pool...and the bear)

So please, tell me what life threatening situation you might get in that cops might save you from that merits letting them run roughshod over the constitutional rights of everyone including you.

Hostage situation. Still unlikely, but not as rare as you might think, it's just most of them don't get too much media coverage anymore. In that situation I'd rather the cops just flat out kill the person/people taking me hostage, rather than waste time trying to talk them down. That is assuming their snipers have a clear shot and I won't be harmed in the process of course.

Riots are also another instance, although that's more about protecting property than life. If cops have to shoot or beat to death a bunch of rioters and looters so my property doesn't get damaged, then so be it.

I'll be completely honest with you, as long as I feel what the cops are doing is protecting or advancing my own interests; I find it a lot easier to turn a blind eye to what they may be doing to others.

 

[onejayhawk]

I can understand how you came to this opinion, but it is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how grand juries are organized.

A lot of that is going around. Alan Dershowitz on Ferguson and other things.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Dershowitz-Ferguson-media-Iran/2014/11/25/id/609460/

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'll be completely honest with you, as long as I feel what the cops are doing is protecting or advancing my own interests; I find it a lot easier to turn a blind eye to what they may be doing to others.

That's refreshing.

I still think in the long view you should consider that the erosion of equal protection under the law is a bad thing, but at least you aren't trying to pretend everything is just hunky dory.

 

[classical_hero]

Bull. Name one witness who claims to have seen anything that transpired within the vehicle, where Wilson alleges that Brown went for his gun, much less that anyone corroborates, or was in any position to corroborate, that Brown went for the gun before Wilson did.

I am wondering how did Brown get himself into the car? Did he try and reach in and grab the gun? Did the Officer grab Brown in to he could create a scene so he could maliciously shot Brown? Can you give a scenario besides the one that the Officer said could have happened as to why Brown's blood was found inside of the cop car?

 

[bhsup]

Bull. Name one witness who claims to have seen anything that transpired within the vehicle

Officer Wilson

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. Well spotted.

But that's the one witness with something to gain by presenting a case favourable to Officer Wilson about what happened there.

Which isn't to say his account is inaccurate. Just that he's got a good reason for it, if it is.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

In my opinion, justice was served.

The huge controversy surrounding the facts of the issue means there is certainly reasonable doubt. We cannot crucify Wilson on what some people supposedly know, only on what we can prove.

On that note though, I personally believe that Wilson was at least partly right in the way he handled the situation and I am leaning towards believing what he says. I have little sympathy for a Michael Brown, the criminal in this situation, even if Wilson may have handled the situation improperly.

 

[Smote]

Dershowitz is mostly upset at the use of indictments in this country... another example...

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dershowitz-perry-indictment-outraged/2014/08/16/id/589179/

Practically speaking, an ignorant grand jury is in a prosecutor's pocket. There's a reason for the saying "you could indict a ham sandwich." It's hard to believe that a group of professional lawyers could not come up with a convincing argument, when a man was killed, when there was no defense/judge. This is what you'd have me believe. I believe the far more obvious explanation that the group purposely botched the indictment. Supreme Court Justice Scalia agrees.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

I can only conclude that the prosecutor simply didn't want Darren Wilson to go to trial. This makes a lot of sense, when you consider "McCulloch’s father, brother, nephew and cousin all served with St. Louis police; his mother was a clerk there."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_cdd4c104-6086-506e-9ee8-aa957a31fee5.html

He's biased, and not doing his job because of an obvious conflict of interest.

Grand juries are no replacement for trials, and McCulloch's perversion of the grand jury process to suit his own biases is alarming. I am confident that Dershowitz regrets his opinion in light of evidence of the prosecutor misrepresenting the law and calling the whole grand jury proceedings into question. If you notice the dates, his opinion comes before this scandal was found. He was probably 'hopeful' that the proceedings were somewhat close to a trial, because the prosecutor was acting as he is supposed to. In this grand jury, there was nobody there to keep the prosecutor from purposely botching his presentation to grand jurors.

Our current procedure for grand juries is very flawed, imo. They need consult of an impartial legal expert. What they got is a bunch of people that misled them on purpose. I acknowledge that I can't know this for sure, just as you can't know whether anyone actually is biased or only consistently acts in a biased way, but the evidence seems to point to purposeful misrepresentation of the law, which the jurors were basing their decision on.

 

[Smote]

In my opinion, justice was served.

The huge controversy surrounding the facts of the issue means there is certainly reasonable doubt. We cannot crucify Wilson on what some people supposedly know, only on what we can prove.

On that note though, I personally believe that Wilson was at least partly right in the way he handled the situation and I am leaning towards believing what he says. I have little sympathy for a Michael Brown, the criminal in this situation, even if Wilson may have handled the situation improperly.

I do not think justice was served. Whether Wilson is guilty or innocent is not up to us to decide. It needs to go to trial, and have evidence presented in the controlled atmosphere of a courtroom. I don't care what the verdict is, but I demand that Wilson go through the same procedure as everyone else. It's horribly unfair that he gets to go through a grand jury proceeding, while everyone else has to go through a trial.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I do not think justice was served. Whether Wilson is guilty or innocent is not up to us to decide. It needs to go to trial, and have evidence presented in the controlled atmosphere of a courtroom. I don't care what the verdict is, but I demand that Wilson go through the same procedure as everyone else. It's horribly unfair that he gets to go through a grand jury proceeding, while everyone else has to go through a trial.

The outcome of the trial would be obvious though. Grand juries were originally intended to prevent things from going to trial that would undoubtedly end "Not Guilty".

It's possibly true the prosecutor did not expend due effort but the prosecutor had NO obligation to bring it to trial in the first place. He could have let Wilson off completely, which is often the practice when it comes to people being shot by police officers.

 

[Smote]

I agree, it's within his legal right to think, "police officers are above the law" and not prosecute any police officers. But our society is based around "everyone is equal," not a Police Officer as first class citizen, and everyone else as second class. Disregarding this basic ideal of fairness removes any possibility of justice, regardless of the outcome.

I agree about the filtering mechanism of grand juries. But this only make sense if the prosecutor is adequate representing his side. This is assumed - and the reason why they are designed to have a prosecutor, but no defense or judge - to see if the prosecutor's argument holds weight.

This prosecutor's argument did not hold weight, because of prosecutor bias/incompetence, not because there was no evidence he could have used.

 

[Borachio]

I have little sympathy for a Michael Brown, the criminal in this situation, even if Wilson may have handled the situation improperly.

Even though Brown is dead.

Yeah. I'm hearing what you're saying.

 

[JohnRM]

Long since asked and answered. As the saying goes, keep up or keep out.

Actually, you didn't answer the question. You made up a hypothetical situation in an attempt to skirt your ignorance on the matter and to resist having to say that for the simple fact that someone is dead means the cop did something wrong, ergo it's always the cops' fault. Just admit it.