General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYou might want to re-think that comment you are about to post about Ferguson
I'm posting a tiny bit - follow the link for more.
http://beccyjoy.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/you-might-want-to-rethink-that-comment-you-are-about-to-post-about-ferguson-mo/
By saying, “you do not have all of the facts” we are essentially saying “I don’t believe that you are smart enough to know what is happening right in front of your face.”
By saying, “this isn’t a race issue” we are saying “I know more than black people about what it feels like to be black.”
By saying, “I’m sad about this too but…” we are saying that there is really an ending to this sentence that rectifies a mother losing a child.
By saying, “let’s see what the autopsy says” we are saying, “I need a white doctor to tell me what really happened because I’m not going to believe the eye witness accounts of a bunch of black kids.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Thanks.
K&R
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)He got caught arresting someone for filming him and threatening them. So we can't film them in public but they can film us in our private residences...activating our cell phone microphones and cameras. What kind of hell hole country have these fascists turned our home into? They are liars, criminals and filthy traitors to freedom. Seriously, they have declared war on everyone just to get their money. They are disgusting. Just like good Nazis they go along as their evil gets deeper and deeper. How long do they think people will take it? It's not just minorities they are violating. When they try to shut the media out I hope the media and individuals use drones to record it all.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)It's up to the citizenry to do the recording.
And if net neutrality goes down, we'll be transmitting our incriminating videos at dialup speed.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Any kid can fly them now and they are cheap.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I think I remember someone flying a little toy robocopter & camera over the cops during Occupy.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Show the truth. They are in our phones and bedrooms everyday and don't have a leg to stand on.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... Can see that medical forensics is far more definitive than eyewitness reports....
frylock
(34,825 posts)the type of injury one might receive when trying to move the muzzle of a gun away from them.
maced666
(771 posts)
REP
(21,691 posts)It's not uncommon for shooting victims to reflexively shield themselves with their hands.
frylock
(34,825 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)Just suggesting a different defensive action; instead of trying to move the muzzle with the hand, trying to block an incoming object by throwing up the hands. It's reflexive, even when logic tells you that hands won't stop a bullet. I was agreeing and adding to your statement; if I didn't write well enough to make that obvious I apologize.
I didn't read the ME's report so I don't know if it was a contact wound. If it was, your hypothesis fits; if it wasn't, either yours or mine could fit. No matter what, he was murdered.
OLDMADAM
(82 posts)It's that mindset that has me rethinking my initial opinions.. That is to say, I am old enough and black enough to distrust the police when it comes to their justification to excuse, or deflect attention away from the abundance of evidence when confronted with the deliberate overreaction to the use of deadly force against Black males..
I have recently moved from Chicago to Texas, something I was reluctant to do, and am only now beginning to feel safe when leaving my home in a much different setting than I felt so naturally fearful to do in my former neighborhood back home.. The atmosphere in my new neighborhood is so different, as this is such a low crime area, I am only now beginning to realize how desensitized I was to the dysfunction and lawlessness so prevalent back home..
I never thought it was so bad when it was the only thing I knew throughout my life, that I didn't even think about it, it was just the way it was, and it wasn't ever going to be different, because we just never did anything different to change it, except to hunker down to just survive.. We distrusted the police, for damned good reasons, because they were as desensitized to the threats as we were, and may have had a hair trigger for self preservation as the kids they confronted, these deadly situations were inevitable..
I don't know what I am trying to say, it's just so sad, for everyone..
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Or being shot while holding up one's hands.
The fact itself is open to interpretation. There are many ways to be shot in the hand.
Nay
(12,051 posts)forearms. Was it?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... Equally likely explanations.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)a chance they're guilty. The evidence needs to show a reasonable likelihood of conviction. The point of the Grand Jury is to determine that.
We must not fall in to the trap of outcome-based reasoning.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)but several independant ones that all agree are pretty good evidence.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Who said that the cop tried to get out of the car, bumped into himself, became enraged, a struggle ensued at the car, and then Mike Brown tried to run after having been shot in the hand.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)A man with his throat cut and ear removed ruled an accidental drug overdose?
http://www.texasobserver.org/official-report-cites-drug-overdose-cause-alfred-wrights-death/
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Two painfully obvious things...
1) This case has had at least three different assessments of the autopsy so any blatant falsehoods would be immediately spotted due to the enormous pressure of the public eye....
2) An honest person would admit that that one case is hardly representative of MEs in America.
So what's your point again?
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)The fact that three examiners were needed in this particular case meant there's a bias factor. In Alfred Wright's case, the medical examiner didn't mention the injuries at all, supporting the Sheriff's claim of a drug overdose. That 'hardly representative' claim depends what side of the tracks you're on. Keep pretending it's a rare instance.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Actually I was figuring the doctor would be Indian.
Because clearly we cannot trust a white doctor to do an honest autopsy.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)cop in no danger whatsoever is pretty offensive.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Sorry, but waiting for facts the only logical thing.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sure, I would like to see MORE evidence. But 6-7 eyewitnesses who say they witnessed an act of surrender- THAT IS EVIDENCE TOO.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I will wait to see all the facts that are released. My gut tells me Michael Brown got shitty with Wilson (possibly to the point of getting physical), but then realized what he did was wrong and tried to deescalate the situation and Wilson then would not back down. I could be wrong and will wait to see what facts are ultimately released before trying to come to a firmer conclusion.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)of what happened that day. That fact alone tells us that we shouldn't rely on eyewitnesses alone if other evidence is available.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)accurately, that is totally to be expected. people saw him stumble, crumble and fall, not lunge or "bum rush" as Wilson's proxy maintained.
basically, they tell much the same story, despite some trying to muddy the waters by adding rumors to the mix. The vast majority felt OW was in no immediate danger when he fired those shots.
phil89
(1,043 posts)NT
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)LOL, when you have 6-7 strangers saying basically the same thing happened - he was surrendering- I tend to believe it yes. That sort of testimony IS actually very reliable.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)That being said, from everything so far it appears the cop is guilty as hell.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)- actions- they are actually pretty memorable for the majority of people. just because lawyers use that line to discredit witnesses doesn't mean we should fall for that crap. the people promoting it know damned well forensics will not be able to interpret what happened better than eye witnesses. And many are glad to discredit the witnesses by hiding behing "science" that does not apply here.
840high
(17,196 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)had different POVs, and slight differences- like the amount he stumbled, was it actually even a step. But essentially there are like 6-7 people saying the same thing. MB was surrendering, and not a threat.
Officer Wilson told someone something different, who repeated it on the radio- and lots of people call that a witness statement. Nope, he was a participant, who's life is on the line. He;s the only one telling a very different story.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)"Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated."
Now mind you witnesses cant just be dismissed but the problem is they are only human and its why a good DA wants something stronger like hard physical evidence that will withstand an appeal and especially in a case like this because if the officer is convicted it will be appealed and if the evidence doesnt support the case on appeal the whole thing can be tossed out.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Odd that somehow a claim can be made waiting for information is tantamount to having your mind made up.
JEB
(4,748 posts)are not waiting for any facts to come in.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
logosoco
(3,208 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Mike Brown used his super-human mind rays to cause it to float into Wilson's hand, defying gravity, physics and plain old-fashioned common sense in one fell swoop.
Hope I don't need the 
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)grabbed a MUCH larger man by the throat, against all physics overpowered this person in a position of much greater leverage and yanked him in through the window.
Reality is that a lot of bullshit has been claimed by all sides. And THAT is why many of us say to wait until the facts come in. And if people truly think Eric Holder is going to support the side of bullshit (i.e. the side the evidence doesn't support), then there is NOTHING that will convince them the view they most likely had on second one is wrong.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)...he had his gun. The gun is the great equalizer.
Oh, and by the way...
Funny how you called this teenager a "man". Were he white, he would be a boy or teenager.
And finally, Darren Wilson is not a SMALL man. He is tall and has stature. Making him out to be a small little "Zimmerman" doesn't work here. He still murdered an unarmed teenager!
Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #55)
joeglow3 This message was self-deleted by its author.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)1. I call an 18 year old a man. However, you show exactly the critical thinking you put into waiting for analyzing facts when you make it clear you already know, in your head, how I would respond if the person were white. See, by claiming I am a racist, you can immediately discredit anything I say without having to address facts. It really is a fascinating defense mechanism.
2. The argument is now that Michael Brown leaned into the car because Wilson pulled it and ordered him to lean in through the window?
3. Michael Brown was 6 foot 4 and 292 pounds. From what I have seen, estimates are that Wilson is 6 foot 2 and he looks to be about 230-250 pounds. Ask anyone who has fought, wrestled, etc. and they will tell you a 40-60 pound weight difference is a big deal.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)As irrelevant when the "just the facts" crowd here defended Zimmerman.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Size and weight WERE indeed completely dismissed during the Trayvon Martin was murdered trial.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)that the very same people who dismissed the size and weight difference then bring it up over and over again now.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)The very same ones, but they feign innocence and pretend they do not have an agenda. Hopefully, more will uncloak and go the way of some of the ardent Zimmerman supporters.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Hopefully, more will uncloak and go the way of some of the ardent Zimmerman supporters.
One lives to hope, I guess, but the racism is as thick as the sexism on this site these days.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)They need a reason - any reason at all.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Now, in line with the officer’s driver’s side door, they could see the officer’s face. They heard him say something to the effect of, “what’d you say?” At the same time, Johnson says the officer attempted to thrust his door open but the door slammed into Brown and bounced closed. Johnson says the officer, with his left hand, grabbed Brown by the neck.
“I could see the muscles in his forearm,” Johnson said. “Mike was trying to get away from being choked.”
“They’re not wrestling so much as his arm went from his throat to now clenched on his shirt,” Johnson explained of the scene between Brown and the officer. “It’s like tug of war. He’s trying to pull him in. He’s pulling away, that’s when I heard, ‘I’m gonna shoot you.’”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Moving people around not only depends upon size, but upon leverage and balance. A small woman can pull or push a giant guy off his feet if he doesn't have his balance. It's entirely possible to grab someone by the shirt and pull their upper body into a car window if they don't expect it. Don't expect to KEEP them there long, if you're 'vastly smaller', unless, of course, you pull a gun on them.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)That Wilson threatened Brown with the gun after he abruptly raced his SUV into reverse to escalate the situation. I then suspect Brown struggled for the gun that was pointed at him.
My reasoning for this is that:
1> I find it hard to fathom someone reaching through an SUV window across an attentive person and undo a safety holster.
2> Wilson was already behaving aggressively and erratically with his vehicular movements. I doubt that behavior stopped at driving.
Again, I am just speculating.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)that gun to leave Wilson's holster in the first place\? (I'm not a Republican, so I assume it didn't just magically unholster itself.)
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)jaywalking (or a trip to jail on suspicion of theft at worst) So why was Wilson's gun unholstered????
Sorry if I keep repeating myself. I've heard nothing so far to suggest that Wilson faced any set of circumstances that would have required him to draw his weapon, much less discharge it.
If your suspicions are correct, then Wilson at the least brandished his firearm without probable cause to do so.
simak
(116 posts)Are we supposed to believe Wilson somehow pulled him in? And what kind of tactical advantage would that have given him?
I'd feel a lot better about criticizing the cops if they didn't have uncontested video of the kid shaking down a shopkeeper minutes earlier.
There's nothing in the published official accounts of the shooting that's inconsistent with the video of an apparent strong-arm robbery.
I would rather reserve my civil disobediences for a more obvious injustice.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)I believe it has been. Do we have some sort of testimony coming out of the Grand Jury trial where this was information given under oath.
Or do you have something you can share with the class that states he was robbing and beating that store owner?
Thanks.
simak
(116 posts)Or are you saying the video, and a call to the police about a robbery, didn't occur before the shooting?
Because if you're saying the video doesn't show a robbery, I'm happy to let a jury decide.
And if you're saying the video "blames the victim" then I would point out that "blaming the victim" is exactly what it means to justify a police shooting. In fact, there is no other justification.
If you think that kid was just strolling down the street minding his own business, then I can see how you'd be indignant. And I would also propose that you take another look at the video, because if he had just committed a felony then there's reason to believe he would also challenge the legitimate authority of Officer Wilson.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)I'm just saying - I don't think you should jump to any conclusions until the Grand Jury tells you what you are allowed to think/opinion should be. I'm betting that video was shown. If it was - then you need to wait and not take sides until the Grand Jury and Prosecutor (who is running the grand jury) tells you what opinion you are allowed to have.
For all we know -your eyes might have deceived you. 
I just wasn't aware that the Grand Jury had released their opinion on the video yet - as according to some with opinions it was a critical piece of information as to why Wilson shot Michael Brown six time - I'm guessing it was shown to the Grand Jury. .
You need to wait and see and totally defer to them. If the grand jury throws it out and says it is irrelevant - or if the prosecutor did - you will have to live with that.
simak
(116 posts)And I don't think I'm any more passionate than anyone else here.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Another example of criminal justice in America . . . Good bad indifferent - OJ Simpson did not kill that woman or man. He simply didn't. The jury said it was so. And that's that.
If the Grand Jury says there's no proof Wilson did it - then no trial.
If they say he did - then a trial.
And then if the jury in the criminal trial says he did it - or didn't do it - then so be it.
I just hope he realizes there will be a lot of nut jobs running around screaming 'he did it! he did it! he did it!' for years to come. OJ survived it - so will he.
simak
(116 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)don't aways find the truth.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)The jury was just being vindictive and jealous and the judge should never have let that frivolous lawsuit come to the courts in the first place.
So now - even when a man beyond a shadow of a doubt did NOT do it - anyone can just sue him for his money because . . . I don't know - fiddle dee! That's just ugh!
Oh wait . . .
gollygee
(22,336 posts)he felt like OJ Simpson was guilty and the second trial's result is proof of that. But that assumes that he recognizes that a jury saying "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean the person was indeed innocent.
I don't think the prosecutor wants this to go to trial. I don't accept that a jury saying "no trial" means that Wilson is actually innoccent. The system is rigged.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)I would hope he wasn't saying that.
We should not be mixing up civil suits and criminal suits.
Civil Suits are very often driven by greed and are without merit.
Forever and ever and ever the poster has to ACCEPT without questioning -
OJ WAS NOT GUILTY.
He wasn't. He did NOT murder those people. He didn't. And that's that.
No more discussion.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Sorry!
That's just how I read his comment, as if the second trial (with a different standard of evidence) negates the first. And if that is what he meant, then he contradicts this idea that he always accepts what a jury says as true.
This is a conversation I had IRL about Zimmerman a few times, with people whom I knew didn't agree with the results of the OJ Simpson trial.
"Zimmerman was found not guilty, so you have to accept that as the truth. The legal system works."
"I thought you disagreed with the results of the OJ Simpson trial. So I guess that means you accept the results of that trial as the truth now?"
"No, that's not the same thing!!"
When of course they're contradicting themselves. They use this argument when convenient, and ignore it when convenient.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Hopefully he will come back and explain that to us.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)I don't think so at least . . .
"I thought you disagreed with the results of the OJ Simpson trial. So I guess that means you accept the results of that trial as the truth now?"
I do see that pattern you know . . .
simak
(116 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Anyone can do that. Sue for frivolous reasons.
ETA - and I want to add greed. That's why Nicole's Family turned it's cheek from the 'alleged' abuse all of those years. They were just being gold digging money grubbing greedy pigs.
It's not the same as guilty of murder.
Everyone always has it out for innocent rich people. OJ Simpson had a jury of people jealous of him in that civil trial - nothing more and nothing less. 
tblue37
(65,341 posts)customer, not someone representing the store.
The clerk put his hand on Brown first, and then Brown shoved him away.
The video does show MB paying. IOW, there could be other interpretations of the contretemps between MB and the clerk. I'm wondering whether the clerk might have been trying to insist MB prove he is of age to purchase tobacco products. Or perhaps he wants to count the number of cigarillos MB picked up, to make sure he isn't getting one or two more than he paid for.
MB mostly just seems annoyed at being stopped, and that shove seems more obnoxious than truly threatening. I deal with kids that age all the time, and that does look like a pissy "Get off me !" adolescent male shove rather than something really serious.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Response to tblue37 (Reply #294)
ollie4 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ollie4
(59 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)simak
(116 posts)Are you arguing there's some sort of unfairness about using the video, or are you claiming it's fake, or that it shows something other that what it's purported to show?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)for the loose cigarillos he left the store with.
You're claiming that video shows a 'robbery' when that very fact is itself contested.
EPIC FAIL!
simak
(116 posts)Is it contested whether this inexplicable altercation occurred just minutes before the shooting?
Just because you can't see the supporting documentation doesn't mean it didn't go down as the police reported.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)made an ssertion directly to the contrary and so now you're going to equivocate away your original assertion? Have at it.
simak
(116 posts)If the video is authentic and Brown is manhandling the shopkeeper then I don't consider that "contested".
But I do understand there's at least some evidence he paid.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
facts don't agree with you.cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)wait for them we couldnt jump to conclusions based purely on our own biased viewpoints, now could we?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)This poster has an opinion...he just pretends he doesn't.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You've got half a dozen witnesses who, without coordinating stories, all came up with reasonably similar explanations of what they saw, along with audio that matched up with witness testimony as well about the pattern of gunfire.
From the facts already provided, both by witnesses and the autopsy, we can basically ignore what may or may not have happened at the time of the initial shooting because THAT may or may not have been justified. But the only 'discrepancy' in any of the stories or evidence provided about the rest of the shots is the claim that Brown turned and lunged at Wilson, and only Wilson tells that curiously self-serving story. While every other witness who did NOT have self-interest, has proclaimed that no such lunge took place.
Barring some incredible conspiracy turning up, in which all the witnesses stand to benefit from Wilson's arrest, I don't see what other facts are out there that really matter.
Sometimes 'waiting for facts' is simply a way to turn action into inaction. We see it all the time in politics, where an important issue is studied to death, long enough for the public's attention to turn elsewhere, so that it can then be quietly dropped, and nothing be done. The NRA loves to get politicians to 'wait for all the facts' in the aftermath of any given massacre, to prevent any legislation from arising to stop future massacres.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)but its been proven over and over again that that witnesses and their memories arent dependable and its why you need evidence that corroborates their memory especially when your dealing in a case where someone was killed.
As for this case in particular if the evidence supports the claims of some of the witnesses then the officer should be charged and hopefully convicted if the evidence doesnt though then it doesnt its really that simple.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They'd like it better if the heavily armed right-wing would get involved. The best way to prevent a revolution is to create a civil war.
2naSalit
(86,600 posts)Thread winner!
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)James McPherson's Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, a collection of essays that explore just this theme. The U.S. Civil War was the last time in American history that the interests of the proletariat aligned with the interests of the (northern and western) bourgeoisie.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)side with one side of a civil war doesn't not make it a revolution. In my opinion.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)make revolution more difficult (think Germany after its defeat in World War I). But the U.S. Civil War overturned long-standing property relations, i.e., slavery, and in that sense (among others) constituted a 'revolution' that advanced the interests of the proletariat. The French Revolution also arguably saw the interests of proletariat and bourgeoisie coincide (against the aristocracy, clergy and monarchy). However, the FR was not preceded by a civil war.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a war between two ruling classes, the North vs. South. The result served the rulers in the North very well. The fact that humans were released from slavery was an unintended consequence for the ruling class in the North.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)I apologize for the oversight. Going back to edit my original post referencing the work. Thanks for the corrective\annotation.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)It looks very interesting. I tend to only view the Civil War through the lens of my ancestors - on my mother's side they were all involved with the Confederacy and on my father's side, no one was of the proper age to fight in the war- and on my husband's side, he had ancestors who all fought on the Union side, one being in Sherman's March through the South.
So I know the small stories, and need perspective of the larger one. Thanks for mentioning this book!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And look at CoIntelPro was doing in the '60s. This is not a new problem.....
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Let's wait for all the facts. The grand jury has more information than we have.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Juries have only as much information as the lawyers give to them. The public often has more information than juries, which why verdicts often seem out of whack. Grand juries are even worse, because only one side is presented.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2014, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)
The grand jury has more information than we have.
Without the current justice system, what else do we have?
I'll add that we do not have a decision yet either. It seems that everyone already has the results of the grand jury investigation figured out - meaning that many have already decided that Wilson will walk. Can we at least wait until we know that for a fact?
dpibel
(2,831 posts)The only attorney who presents evidence to a grand jury is the prosecutor. There's no "fault of the attorneys on the side that failed to present."
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)n/t
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they get. They get a very biased, one sided view that the prosecutor wants to present.
"Let's wait for the facts". Of course, like we actually have a choice. But I doubt that there will be undisputed facts given to us by the grand jury.
Here's a fact as I see it. All involved are polarized and highly biased.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)The Grand Jury is shown what the Prosecutor chooses to show them. They have tremendous control over whether or not an indictment comes down from the jury. The public will not get to see more details till/unless the case goes to trial.
The real question the local prosecutor and Holders DOJ have to ask. Is there any hope of actually getting a conviction? Is there anything political to be gained/lost by spending the money and dragging this out another 18 months?
Given the leaks from Fed's about unrest as well as Holders DOJ stating Civil Rights Charges are not being Pursued. It hint's that DOJ doesn't think there is a case there.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Oktober
(1,488 posts)How will you prove it? Do you even know the federal standards?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Because the entire white power structures in southern towns were so corrupt. The Feds had to step in. Perhaps that is the case here.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Murdered a teenaged boy, execution style, in front of 7 witnesses. He needs to be arrested, tried, and convicted. His assets need to be seized and turned over to the Brown family and he needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. In general population, no special treatment.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)ncjustice80
(948 posts)You do realize when the police murder someone its a 4A civil rights violation?
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... From actual legal proceedings.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Wilson needs to metaphorically fry for his crimes.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)ncjustice80
(948 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Our opinions are just that...opinions.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Can make desicions because of racial bias?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)This post as well?
Seems to be something of a lecture.
dilby
(2,273 posts)By saying, “let’s see what the autopsy says” we are saying, “I need a white doctor to tell me what really happened because I’m not going to believe the eye witness accounts of a bunch of black kids.”
Witnesses can be wrong and I trust science and the medical community more than a witness, I mean how many times has some person said they saw a UFO only to have the science community come out and say there was a weather balloon in the area. Who should I trust the eye witness or the professionals?
cali
(114,904 posts)first of all, not all MEs are white, secondly, I think it's bigoted (the very subject of the op) to suggest that an ME is guided by his/her skin color and not science.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)not believing the witnesses is waiting for what better evidence exactly? I have to laugh that anyone thinks there is better info that people who did witness the last moments have.
And all that "unreliable" crap- it's about facial features, NOT compelling events.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)where the police murdered Henry Glover by shooting him in the back, beat him, then set him and his car on fire (after he died)? That the medical examiner said his cause of death was undetermined and it wasn't until an investigative reporter, spurred on by the man's family, decided to look into the case that the real facts came out?
Fortunately the two of the many officers involved were convicted and sentenced only to have those convictions overturned later by an appeals court because their trials should have been held separately.
And the medical examiner to this day, has left the COD as "undetermined."
I'm not saying that this much cover-up has happened in Ferguson, or any cover-up at all, but you can't always trust the medical community over witnesses (there were witnesses in the Glover case to, who happened to be telling the truth).
PBS Frontline documentary about Mr. Glover and the case.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Are either incredibly naive and gullible or intentionally obtuse.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)And I also remember how they even tried to push their actions off on Blackwater.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)Found stripped to his boxers with a missing ear and his throat cut. Examiner ruled it an accidental death, ready to rule the whole thing a drug overdose.
http://www.texasobserver.org/official-report-cites-drug-overdose-cause-alfred-wrights-death/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)between people seeing something from a mile or two off, beyond the range that they can see any real detail, often at night, and what a dozen or so people saw from maybe 30-100 feet in broad daylight?
dilby
(2,273 posts)Should I believe those eye witnesses over the doctors medical report? Eye witnesses obviously can at best collaborate a story or at worse completely lie.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The 'broken eye socket' story came from some RW idiot online. Who refused to change his story after it was shown that it was obviously a lie. Not from an 'eyewitness'.
dilby
(2,273 posts)And said he was severely beaten, face swollen and other bullshit. So if this guy is lying about seeing the guys face how can I trust anyone that says they saw something.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)How can you trust a group of witnesses that was there? Just double checking to see if that's what you're asking.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)You might want to check your source(s). (Research has shown that people who regularly view FOX lose IQ points precipitously...)
Furthermore, video showing an uninjured Officer Wilson right after he was allegedly "severely beaten" and left with "a swollen face" and "a fractured eye socket" has been posted on multiple venues. I've seen this video, and there are no visible injuries on Wilson's face.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)they back each other up. That's what makes them more reliable.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)I've heard this on DU. But do you have a link to any news stories that support the allegation?
I just haven't seen them.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)but you'll have to google at this point. If you google "Michael Brown shooting witnesses" you'll find lots of information.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)I've followed this story closely from the beginning.
The Ferguson police department floated the "serious injury" story early on. There have never been reports of numerous witnesses to this supposed injury.
And there's the little problem of all the video of Wilson at the scene, looking for all the world like an uninjured policeman.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and I'm not going to be your personal Google assistant.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I have decided to be your personal Google assistant and found on Kos where he's collected all the accounts from the initial witnesses in one place:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/31/1340611/-The-complete-guide-to-every-public-eyewitness-interview-in-the-shooting-death-of-Mike-Brown
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)be bothered to keep up with current events, nor to search out past stories
JK! You showed the patience of Job with that dolt.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)Perhaps I misread your initial response to Dilby, which appeared to me to be supporting Dilby's claim that Wilson suffered a facial injury. If that is the case, I do apologize.
I was not asking you for evidence that there were multiple eyewitnesses that told similar stories immediately after the event. Charlemagne notwithstanding, I have in fact followed this case closely from the very beginning.
If you are offering the Kos collection as supporting the facial injury claim, I think you are mistaken.
If not, then I think you've misread my posts, which (I thought clearly) challenged the proposition that Wilson suffered a severe facial injury. There are people on DU, I think on this very discussion, who claim that there are multiple people testifying to Wilson's facial injury. I know of no support for that proposition, and that is what I was asking for.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I thought you were claiming that no witnesses saw Michael Brown with his hands up when he got shot.
OOOH your username and that poster's username are a bit similar. I thought YOU were that person.
My response was that the witnesses who saw Michael Brown's hands up are more reliable than the other witness because there are so many who immediately and independently saw the same thing.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Mostly rich white people...
bvf
(6,604 posts)
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)ollie4
(59 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)It worked for the main culprit for over 40 years. He was not rich. Coincidentally, he was finally convicted during or shortly after the OJ trial. There a lot more examples like him...not so much with OJ.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Quite a few "witnesses" saw the missile that brought it down.
Why wait for the NTSB to try and find every last shred of the Airframe and reconstruct it all in a hanger?
And should we really let anyone convicted on EyeWitness identification, be subsequently cleared by DNA?
I guess I must be a Klansman for thinking that Eyewitness testimony leaves alot to be desired.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Moving on...
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Saying "I want to know more before I make up my mind" isn't a weakness, it's the most intelligent response.
As Democrats we are supposed to be the ones who let fact and logic guide us. We don't deny climate change in the middle of a cold winter despite how it "feels", because we trust science, not people telling us to ignore science because it feels cold today.
I want to see all the forensics. Full autopsy, full report in all of it. The science. Science is based in fact and reality, it tells the tale.
We have seen multiple eyewitness accounts- and eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable anyway. We haven't seen the science in full.
So yes, this Democrat isn't going to run around half cocked saying "facts don't matter, I made up my mind". That's the behavior of climate change denials and people who think dinosaur fossils were put here by the devil to make people doubt Jesus.
You should be better than that.
REP
(21,691 posts)There have been corrupt MEs who have falsified findings to support police and prosecutors - Oklahoma and the FBI lab are two well-known examples, and even casual watchers of true crime programs are familiar with cases of people sent to prison or death row based on biased or incompetent forensic work.
I'm from Missouri; I lived there most of my life. I have friends and family who've lived in St Louis. The corruption there is rampant and has been for decades. It'd be nice if the ME's office was free of the taint, but I'm not overly optimistic.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Many people here have said the only way the "facts" come in supporting no indictment would be because of criminal behavior. Thus, they had all the facts they wanted on day one.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)...oh, he was shot while *UNARMED*. That's a fact that cannot be disputed!!
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Exactly how does that give you all the evidence you need to form a definitive opinion?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)holster to unsnap itself and that pistol to levitate itself magically into the killer cop's hands.
to keep myself from 
at a life of potential wasted for nothing more serious than jaywalking . . . and being young.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)but was also sooo badass that he "attacked" an armed man and beat him so severely that he had to shoot. these same people adamantly refuse to believe that Martin could have possibly been afraid of the creep who was following him. but it has nothing to do with race, according to them, just "the facts," as told by a murderer
gollygee
(22,336 posts)That African Americans (particularly men) are like animals who go crazy and become superhumanly strong when angry, so it's reasonable to kill them in situations where no one would consider it reasonable to kill a white person. It was created because, though it's flimsy and stupid and has no scientific support, you only need to give a lot of white jurors a little bit of something to cling to. They don't need evidence or anything relevant, just some shred of something to point to and use as an excuse.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)Because what you replied with sounds as though it was written by someone with an agenda, because it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I just hate it when people assume all the facts are known on day one and then only accept the facts that support their conclusion and claim those that dispute it are falsified. We see it all the time here (two recent ones are the girl supposedly asked to leave KFC because of her appearance (never happened) and the black actress who was stopped because she is in an interracial relationship (turned out the police were called because they were screwing in the car, with the door open, in broad daylight).
csziggy
(34,136 posts)The private autopsy and the one done by the Justice Department should shed some light on that. Unfortunately, neither the second or third autopsies had all the information that should have been available to the original ME - the clothing and access to the crime scene.
I worry that the Ferguson PD and the local ME had more incentive to cover up than to seek the facts of the case, whatever they might be.
REP
(21,691 posts)I can see why it may not have been turned over to the private examiner but why not to the DoJ?
How much time was there between all these examinations? Some things, like stippling, can't be washed away, but yeah, I'm too familiar with StLCo incompetence to be entirely reassured.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)I do know from various media reports that the private coroner hired by the family did NOT get access to it.
As for the timing - Michael Brown was shot on Aug. 9. I'm not sure when the ME did the official autopsy. "On August 17, a preliminary autopsy was conducted by Dr. Michael Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, at the request of the family." "On August 19, military coroners released the autopsy results to federal authorities showing that Brown was shot six times, but declined to release additional details until the federal investigation is concluded." Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Autopsies
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)I do not have the blind faith in authority that some have.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)It seems very clear that there's enough evidence for a trial. The stuff you're looking for would come out then.
When people say they want to wait for the facts, they're saying the witnesses are useless. I've never seen multiple independent witnesses with similar stories considered so unreliable until this trial. One witness, yeah. Not this.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)We had witness accounts early on that he was shot in the back (by Dorian Johnson among others), that he was executed when he was on his knees, that there was no struggle by the car, that there was a struggle by the car, that the only incident by the car was the car door 'bouncing off" Brown.
As time went on, and the eyewitness accounts were shared in the media, the accounts started coalescing.
But the autopsy reports already have shown many of them to be inaccurate. Science trumps memory.
And we have only heard from those who saw something who went to the media. There may or may not be those who saw thing differently but didn't go public (and I wouldn't blame them given the mob mentality some are displaying). You are assuming you have heard all the eyewitness accounts, but you are only hearing the ones that went public. Keep that in mind.
They have promised a full dump of everything after the GC verdict is released. No responsible investigating body would release it all sooner.
The only people who are scared of seeing more evidence before they make up their mind are the ones who have an agenda that isn't to learn as much as possible to make an informed judgement. That goes for those who have made their mind up on both sides.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)several indepdendant witnesses all saying right away that he was shot when his hands were up and he was surrendering.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)No one needs 'all the facts'. What people need are the *relevant* facts.
And unfortunately, autopsies don't tell all the tale. Lawyers on both sides frequently present totally different stories that still match the autopsy reports. An autopsy report tells you nothing about people's state of mind, what they said in the moment. No autopsy is going to tell you whether Brown was actually surrendering, whether wilson actually believed his life to be in danger, or even if he was right to think so.
The autopsies matter only insomuch as they rule out certain things. But they don't seem to actually rule out what witnesses (apart from wilson) say occurred.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)You don't get an opinion - at all.
You are not on the grand jury - neither am I.
You get no opinion - and whether all the facts are laid out for you and me in five years - or thirty years - is of little consequence.
You are locked out.
I'm locked out.
Let the justice system work. And accept it as it is. 
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)or even was just, I'd feel a lot better about letting it 'work'.
Sigh.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Don't you know . . . we are supposed to let the system work.
I was just trying to remind some folks that their opinions don't count - even AFTER all the facts are laid out.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I added a mental sarcasm tag there, but it's still depressing.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)
Look for me to reference De La Beckwith, OJ, and Kalief Browder on Wilson threads. I'm fixin' to do that lots and lots. 
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... even in a case like this.
For example, that last one.
Eyewitness testimony is NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. Many an innocent black man has been put on death row because of eyewitness testimony.
Witnesses tend to see what they want to see (or rather, their interpretation of events intends to confirm their bias).
Let me be clear... I believe the cops are out of control. I believe that some of them think it's open season on young, black men.
I also believe in the rule of law, and that everyone, including this cop, is innocent until proven guilty.
So yeah, I DO need to see evidence that corroborates the witness testimony.... whether that comes form a white doctor or not, I don't really know or care.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Or, perhaps, what they're conditioned to see, which may or may not be the reality of the thing.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The reality of a racist police department no doubt colors their interpretation. I strongly suspect this was an unjustified shooting, but I'll be honest and say I haven't seen enough evidence that I would vote to convict.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)innocence still holds if he is indicted and charged. All that is at stake right now is whether probable cause exists such that an indictment should issue.
At least 3 eyewitnesses have stated publicly on the record that Mike Brown had his hands raised in surrender when the killer cop Wilson dispatched the final two shots through the head. That concurrence of eyewitness testimony, imo, is sufficient to establish probable cause that a crime was committed.
If there are witnesses who dispute those eyewitness accounts, Wilson's defense is free to introduce them at a criminal trial. What is not supposed to happen is a 'trial in secret' where witnesses testify without being forced to face cross-examination -- the killer cop Wilson reportedly testified for over 4 hours to the Grand Jury without being cross-examined -- and evidence is submitted without being subject to challenge. This whole Grand Jury proceeding is a 'farce,' a mockery of 'justice.' There is no set of facts that will convince me otherwise, given the 'Star Chamber' quality of these proceedings.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)And think about what you said; Wilson wasn't cross examined. You realize, don't you, that cross examination would be conducted by the prosecutor...who was the was the one conducting the grand jury testimony.
Who exactly do you believe should cross examine Wilson in the grand jury?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)defendants (or targets of a Grand Jury) to testify in front of that Grand Jury. So, no, all grand juries are NOT conducted this way all the time.
Second, this Grand Jury is being conducted by County DA McCulloch in a highly unorthodox fashion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-ferguson-tragedy-becoming-a-farce/2014/09/12/e52226ca-3a82-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html
So, again, you are incorrect that 'all grand juries are conducted this way all the time.'
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Which seems to be a big problem for you. Tough, that's the way grand juries work.
You are interested in justice, you're interested in an indictment and conviction.
While certainly your right, I prefer to wait for all the facts and evidence to come out.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)have been favorable to the killer cop. I have no problems with a secret Grand Jury, but I have a BIG problem with the way that putz McCulloch is conducting this particular Grand Jury.
I'll bet you didn't even read the Milbank piece to which I linked.
Typical of your type, constantly changing the subject -- now it's the secretiveness of the GJ. What will it possibly be next? -- and moving the goalposts.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Sorry to disappoint, but it's not "my" grand jury...nor is it yours, unless you live in St. Louis County, MO.
And you'd lose the bet, because I did read the Milbank piece.
You need to grow up and accept the fact that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them the enemy.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)grand jury," it was "your supposedly 'secret' Grand Jury". You see how that works? You tout the 'secret' Grand Jury process and I parry with a rebuttal that the secret Grand Jury you tout is leaking like a sieve, all the leaks strangely favorable to the killer cop.
So you read the Milbank piece, but you're still sticking by your original assertion that "Oh, FFS, all grand juries are conducted this way all the time (emphasis added)," are you?
Well, I think it is you who needs to 'fess up when you've been schooled.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I won't say what I really think about you, so as to avoid the hide.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)take it out of Gov. Nixon's power and then use them to disarm the local police forces.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014946258#post23
I swear, you can't make this up.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Federalized national guard were sent to protect African Americans in the south because the local police were hostile to desegregation.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)NO, because it would be illegal.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)but in the article i provided you in another response, darren wilson was a member of Jennings, MO police department when the city council voted to disband it. i don't know if that will happen in Ferguson. given the threats by the KKK and others, the National Guard may have to be sent at some point.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)that reflects the racial make up of Ferguson, IMHO, that would alleviate a lot of the racial tension there.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i am not sure it will happen, but it sure as hell needs to happen.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And don't let it become a military force.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And are you convinced that those stories are legitimately untainted? We should not look to charge and try to satisfy a call, if the evidence doesn't support it. But I will wait and see what comes out.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Just like the Zimmerman farce.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)presenting the case to the Grand Jury.
A different DA would have been able toget a Grand Jury to indict Wilson in about 5 seconds flat, just on the witness statements so far publicly available.
Niko
(97 posts)You know, nobody here really knows what happened that day. Everything we base our opinions on comes from the media, and I think it's safe to say that you can't trust the media.
When the actual facts come out, that's when you can formulate an informed opinion. Until then, it's all speculation, and it's dangerous speculation as well, considering the possibility of rioting over what may as well turn out to be a justified shooting.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Niko
(97 posts)If the shooting was justified, there's nothing to charge him with. That's the whole point of the grand jury.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)How hard is it to understand that the grand jury isn't supposed to indict if the members determine that the shooting was justified? The grand jury isn't empaneled to placate the public; it is empaneled to determine if there is enough evidence to forward charges to a trial.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)then what would he be tried on?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I question whether hte prosecutor actually wants a trial, so I question how legitimate this is. I don't think he'll go to trial.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)As they had to with murderers in the south in the 60's because the local justice systems were racist and corrupt.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)They would have to prove it was racially motivated, does Wilson have any racial history?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)FERGUSON, Mo. — The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.
That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.
Some of the Jennings officers reapplied for their jobs, but Wilson got a job in the police department in the nearby city of Ferguson.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and get their take on him, but he also could've just been caught up in the firings through no fault of his own.
But it does need to be investigated by the DoJ.
tblue37
(65,341 posts)Wilson a a black woman, in which he was verbally aggressive toward her even though she was not involved in any crime scene. He demanded to know "WTF" she was doing, and when she started to answer, he yelled at her to "Shut the F up." That incident does suggest that like too many cops, he approaches black citizens rudely and aggressively and then immediately escalates, even when that citizen is not doing anything that he has any reason to interfere with in the first place.
ollie4
(59 posts)Oh....we already have one!
doc03
(35,332 posts)Walmart holding a toy gun or the one in St. Louis that the cops shot from what looked like 20 feet claiming he was charging them with a knife. I don't understand why people want to make their stand on the Brown case. I don't have all the evidence but from what I know it seems justified to me and probably 90% of Americans.
EX500rider
(10,847 posts)The Crossman Mk#177 is a pellet gun which fires a lead pellet at over 500mph and is sold in sporting goods and is in no way a "toy". Toy guns have orange tips on them.
Crossman Mk#177:
doc03
(35,332 posts)to purchase you will be shot. I thinks they better get them out of the store in that case. It is an air-rifle and is not regulated as a
firearm and even if it was there would be no justification to shot anyone for carrying one to the checkout counter.
EX500rider
(10,847 posts)....you grab one in the box with the bar code and go check out.
Walking around the store with one out of the box in your hands could be a problem. (and was in this case)
doc03
(35,332 posts)and besides that it was not a (firearm).
EX500rider
(10,847 posts)Most states have laws against brandishment of weapons.
Someone, possibly him did take it out of the box.
And you need the box to check out. Also it has the directions, the warranty, the front and rear sights and the clip which holds the pellets.
doc03
(35,332 posts)speaches, they weren't shot or even questioned by police. We had nitwits at the Bundy ranch pointing such weopons at law enforcement and they weren't shot either.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)By saying, “you do not have all of the facts” we are essentially saying “I don’t believe that you are smart enough to know what is happening right in front of your face.”
By saying, “this isn’t a race issue” we are saying “I know more than black people about what it feels like to be black.”
By saying, “I’m sad about this too but…” we are saying that there is really an ending to this sentence that rectifies a mother losing a child.
By saying, “let’s see what the autopsy says” we are saying, “I need a white doctor to tell me what really happened because I’m not going to believe the eye witness accounts of a bunch of black kids.”
Here's the problem with that: while I myself have been on the side of the Brown family since day one.....this problem is honestly a lot more complex than this piece lets on.....and then there are some things that just aren't accurate: I doubt anyone who isn't a troll has ever actually implied “I know more than black people about what it feels like to be black.”, when they say, "this isn't a race issue". And "let's see what the autopsy says" doesn't end up implying “I need a white doctor to tell me what really happened because I’m not going to believe the eye witness accounts of a bunch of black kids.”(yes, emphasis mine) in the minds of any but some of the more brazen racists out there(of which there are a fair number out there, unfortunately).
I get what she's trying to say. I know her heart aches for the Browns, and I feel that most DUers share that same sentiment. But we need a better way of getting the message out, one that takes nuances fully into account.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)is excused like a lynching, and winds up with a Black person dead like a lynching, IT'S A LYNCHING.
ollie4
(59 posts)I have to return to that principle.
If we arrest, try and convict people just because they "look" guilty....I'm afraid that would lead to a lot of false arrests, in the black community as well
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)And too bad Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin were found guilty even before their killers were indicted. No innocence for them.
ollie4
(59 posts)If you take innocence until proven guilty out of the equation.....then blacks will be hurt worse now than they already are
There have been lots of cases, some famous but most of them not famous, where someone who appeared to be guilty actually wasn't.
What is the alternative to innocent until proven guilty? What would you replace it with?
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)It's not a matter of 'lead to' - it's a fact.
Black skin equals guilty in America - always has an always will.
I don't like it anymore than you do - but it's a fact of life in America. And non black America better get used to the fact that a lot of black folks . . . we believe that. They don't have to like it - but they can suck it if they don't.
I'm not here to make people feel better about themselve - I'm here in this world for myself.
ollie4
(59 posts)wouldn't that make it even more likely that innocent people would be charged, arrested, tried and convicted?
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)On the skin color of that person who is accused.
There was a kid in NYC arrested back in May of 2010 for a crime he didn't commit. Literally under the age of 18 - sent to Rikers Island and held there for three years without at a trial. He did NOT do it. He was eventually let out.
No trial or anything - he held the line and the system caved.
But the only way that could happen is in an atmosphere where some guy says - He robbed me of a back pack two weeks ago - and the guy is believed without anything on camera or witnesses to prove it.
EDITED to add - for your reference:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/law-3
Kalief Browder
Well - ho hum - fiddle dee . . . he's free now.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)they're guilty.
I don't think the prosecutor wants a trial, so I don't think he's trying to prove anyone is guilty.
I do believe in "innocent until proven guilty" but I want to see actual justice - people actually looking into whether someone is guilty. What we have now, when there is a white defendant and a black victim, is "innocent no matter what."
ollie4
(59 posts)"guilty no matter what"....?
I think the grand jury is examining the evidence, including a lot of it we don't know about.
They will decide whether there is enough evidence to indict. They don't assess guilt, nor does the prosecutor. Their ONLY job is to see whether the accused should stand trial.
This is our system of justice.
I think it is apparent that you don't think the court system is fair, it is stacked against blacks.
I sympathize with that, but this case involves more than a racial issue. There is an accused person here who could face a severe punishment if found guilty. Whether he is white or black, male or female, he deserves the right to a grand jury hearing, which he is receiving.
Before the decision is made on whether to indict, you already are assuming the court is out to let him off because he is white. It could just as easily be argued that you want him to be punished because he is white. I say, wait until the grand jury decides before we condemn it.
I get the feeling that we have a "guilty until proven innocent" idea going on here, and and a lot of people aren't looking for justice, just for someone's head on a platter.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Did you misread or are you twisting my words intentionally? I said that currently, when someone white kills someone black, it is "innocent no matter what." I am not sure how you got from there to thinking I'm saying he's "guilty no matter what."
ollie4
(59 posts)You said..."What we have now, when there is a white defendant and a black victim, is "innocent no matter what."
You really believe that every time a white is a defendant and the victim.....every single time....no matter what.... the white defendant walks?
Those are pretty strong words when there is a trial going on. You imply that no justice comes from the court system.
There is conflicting evidence in the Ferguson case. The grand jury will weigh the evidence and make its best call.
I think it is disrespectful towards the citizens who sit on the grand jury to imply that whites always get off.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Yeah, white people at least almost always get off. There is a pattern of injustice. It isn't disrespectful to state the obvious. Or if it is disrespectful, then the disrespect is well earned.
ollie4
(59 posts)....but to say whites always get off or even almost always get off...I think is an exaggeration that does not really help your case.
What we have in Ferguson is an officer accused of a terrible thing. However, there seems to be a lot of conflicting evidence...some supports the officer, some does not.
There will be a decision, and I expect that no matter which way they decide, there will be some who think their decision was wrong.
However, I think it is presumptuous and disrespectful to the jurors to make the claim that their decision was not based on the evidence they were able to see, but instead on some sort of racial thing, even before the decision has been made.
It would be one thing if some of the jurors said something racially prejudiced and it casts doubt on the integrity of the jury....it is quite another thing to say all whites go free, or almost all....before the decision has even been made.
All I am saying is that this case appears to be a lot more complicated than those on one side of the fence, or the other, would like to make it.
Euphoria
(448 posts)n/t
Response to Euphoria (Reply #302)
ollie4 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ollie4
(59 posts)I find it frustrating that such a simple statement as this has to be made....
dpibel
(2,831 posts)I know that an alleged friend of Wilson called a local radio talk show to give Wilson's side.
That is not evidence.
I know that there was a GJ leak about Wilson's self-serving exculpatory testimony.
I take that with a grain of salt.
I know that there are various people arguing the Wilson defense who claim that there are many witnesses who gainsay the immediately known testimony of various people who said that Brown was surrendering. I've just never seen any actual evidence of that testimony.
There's nearly contemporaneous video of the construction workers saying Brown had his hands up.
I know of no readily available counter evidence.
So help us all out here. Link to this conflicting evidence. Because you're frustrated, and I know you just want to help.
ollie4
(59 posts)http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/witness-adds-new-perspective-to-ferguson-shooting/article_ab6e1e03-c49a-5c7f-8786-b0e88ec79349.html
All I am saying is that we have eye witnesses and evidence on both sides. It is not as cut and dried as what either side would want it to be.
Of course, there is the tendency for people of one side or the other to totally dismiss the evidence that does not support their beliefs.....which is unfortunate
dpibel
(2,831 posts)Contrary to what some seem to believe, a grand jury is not a trier of fact.
The grand jury does not weigh evidence and decide guilt or innocence. The sole function of the grand jury is to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a crime.
It's the job of the trial jury to decide which evidence is most credible.
So the "cut and dried" question is not whether Wilson is guilty of murder or some lesser charge. It's whether there is sufficient evidence to support a charge that should go to trial.
ollie4
(59 posts)They will decide, based on the evidence they see and using their best judgement as human beings, whether to indict.
If they decide the evidence is strong enough to have a trial, they will indict. If not, they won't.
Their job is an important role in protecting Americans from unreasonably being taken to trial.
And that's the long and short of it.
I trust their judgement, and I strongly object to people disrespecting them by saying that because the officer is white they are automatically going to acquit. They are under a lot of pressure...from both sides. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. They probably fear that either way they are at risk for their lives.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)The grand jury cannot "acquit." You are very confused about procedure. Again, the grand jury is not a trial jury. There is not adversarial proceeding, no cross examination of witnesses, no evidentiary rulings.
You should familiarize yourself with the aphorism, attributed to Sol Wachtler, longtime chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, that if a prosecutor wants to, he can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
That is to say, it is not hard for a prosecutor to get an indictment out of a grand jury.
ollie4
(59 posts)If words matter, do you really think the grand jury is going to indict a ham sandwich?
Score a big point for you in my poor choice of words. Big deal. Your condescending attitude really sucks.
How does it feel to be a know it all? Do you really?
Do you really want a dialogue? Or just to score points?
The grand jury will decide. If they indict, it goes to trial. I already said this.
Will you say in advance that you respect the "decision" they are trying to make....(call it by whatever word you think matters)?
I think I made it very plain that the grand jury does not try a case.
If the grand jury indicts the officer, will you be trotting out the ham sandwich line....that a ham sandwich could have been indicted? That surely would not be a convincing argument that the officer is guilty.....
In the meantime, your opinion and mine do not matter a hill of beans. The grand jury is gonna make their decision. Some of us will respect them for their deliberations, and others will not. Which side will you be on?
I doubt if I get an answer to my specific question.
ollie4
(59 posts)...but if the grand jury does NOT think there is enough evidence to go to trial....it won't.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I have decided to judge them based on their OWN rules, given that we live in a de facto police state.
ollie4
(59 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am judging my government based upon its own rules since my government informs me what they are doing is LEGAL and JUST. So, who am I to question my government?
To address a point of yours:
I'm afraid that would lead to a lot of false arrests, in the black community as well
You are afraid it will lead to the exact behavior that is now the norm?
To clarify I am very much a hard-core civil rights advocate, so my questions about judging the state by its own criteria are meant as rhetorical devices to illustrate the illegitimacy of the state's current actions. This is the current reality we live in, i.e. a police state.
ollie4
(59 posts)If you remove that principle, things are admittedly bad in the black communities, but they would get even worse.
Guilty until proven innocent is the philosophy of a lynch mob
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Our system pays lip service to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but when it comes to actually following the practice it undermines the assumption at every turn.
To illustrate this point, I proposed, rhetorically, that the government be judged according to its own standards and practices.
Justice is a wonderful principle, shame there is so little to be had in this country.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)The question of innocence or guilt is not decided by a grand jury. It is decided by a petit jury, after trial. The sole question for a grand jury is whether there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment.
"Innocent until proven guilty" actually doesn't apply to opinions on an Internet discussion board, either. Neither you nor I can put Darren Wilson in jail; we have no legal obligation to retain the presumption of innocence until all the evidence is presented and considered. The only people in the world held to that standard are the jurors, should Wilson be put on trial.
ollie4
(59 posts)Our entire system of justice is based on the presumption of innocence. That is part of why we have an indictment as part of the process. You don't even have to stand trial unless there is significant cause. Yes, the grand jury doesn't assign guilt, but that does not change the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't just start at the trial. Heck, it starts even before an arrest is made, they have to have probable cause a crime was committed. They can't just round up a bunch of people on the premise that they would have to prove themselves innocent later!
Innocent until guilty applies to a sense of fairness people apply in their social interactions, it is not just a legaistic concept that only applies to a court of law.
A lynch mob may think they are justified and take the law in their own hands. In the Salem Witch Trials, the idea was guilty until proven innocent....that didn't have such a good ending.
The opposite of innocent until proven guilty is.....prejudice.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)You really need to acquaint yourself with the name Kalief Browder.
He's 'lived' what you appear to only have warm fuzzy feelings about.
Seriously - I don't mean to hammer you with this - but you need to be very careful here.
This appears to go on quite a bit in NYC. The ONLY reason why this kid (literally a kid) was able to get out - was holding the line against the system which assumes certain youths that look a certain 'way' are always guilty.
It was always assumed he was guilty. No speedy trial. No trial of his peers. Heh heh heh - He was innocent all along.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/law-3
Browder was still on Rikers Island in June of 2012, when his high-school classmates collected their diplomas, and in September, when some of them enrolled in college. In the fall, prosecutors offered him a new deal: if he pleaded guilty, he’d get two and a half years in prison, which meant that, with time served, he could go home soon. “Ninety-nine out of a hundred would take the offer that gets you out of jail,” O’Meara told me. “He just said, ‘Nah, I’m not taking it.’ He didn’t flinch. Never talked about it. He was not taking a plea
His battle to prove his innocence had ended. No trial, no jury, no verdict. An assistant district attorney filed a memo with the court explaining that Bautista, the man who had accused Browder, had gone back to Mexico. The District Attorney’s office had reached his brother in the Bronx and tried to arrange for him to return and testify, but then the office lost contact with the brother, too. “Without the Complainant, we are unable to meet our burden of proof at trial,” the prosecutor wrote.
Justice is simply not an easy peasy - piece of cake upside down with whip cream and a cherry on top kind of thing in America.
That said - that Bautista guy is not an American . . . he should be denied entry into our country on a go forward basis. What a little lying asshole. And then he cuts and runs? He's probably involved in a drug cartel. That's the only explanation I can come up with for him cutting and running like that.
onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)White police and state leadership trying to force the black community to accept they can be killed in cold blood in broad daylight and had better not try to get justice.
This country just makes me want to vomit.
Solomon
(12,310 posts)Facts are determined at a TRIAL. When people say wait for the facts they are very confused as to what a TRIAL is. If the motherfucker didn't do it, let him show it at TRIAL. Gettin g a trial is actually a right. Ask the people locked up at GITMO who never got the right to show they didn't do anything.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)this bullshit about waiting for the facts is expressing an opinion, just as the OP describes. and it is always the usual suspects here who claim to be objective.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)kept supporting Tricky Dick on similar grounds, even as revelation after revelation occurred that progressively shredded his image and stature until, with the release of the tapes, the 'smoking gun' showed that Tricky Dick actually had conspired to obstruct justice (even with the 18-minute magical gap in the tapes).
It's a fundamentally shifty and dishonest strategy, as befits the previous Nixon, but I can't quite wrap my mind around why it is so shifty, just this sense that these folks are prepared to 'go down with the ship of the U.S.S. Darren Wilson' and that no set of facts will ever convince them of his guilt; they will simply keep moving the goal posts.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)many of them (those who were not banned) also "believed" zimmerman.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Yeah.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Several independent eye witnesses all said right away that Michael Brown was shot while his hands were up and he was surrendering. I don't know how many situations exist where that many independent witnesses with the same story would be seen as not enough evidence for something to go to trial.
hack89
(39,171 posts)DAs can indict anyone they want without citizen input?
Solomon
(12,310 posts)And yes, DAs can indict or charge without citizen input. That's their fucking job. They usually only use a grand jury when they dont want to take responsibility for filing charges.
You are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are ignorant about the way the criminal "justice" system works and thus easily manipulated by the false idea that only a grand jury can indict and they must be fed with "all of the evidence". It's bullshit. Sheer utter bullshit!
hack89
(39,171 posts)To prove he didn't commit a crime. Do I really need to tell you how fucked up that is?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)In front of multiple witnesses. An unarmed man is dead by his hands, and multiple witnesses have suggested the unarmed man was no threat to anyone at the time he was killed.
Do you really think that doesn't deserve a trial? Why on earth the prosecutor felt the need to empanel a grand jury is a real question.
There's no question Wilson fired the shots that killed Brown. No possibility of 'mistaken identity'.
Surely Michael Brown deserves to have his killer face a jury of his peers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)along with witnesses we are not aware of. Their testimony was balanced against the forensic evidence to sort out inconsistencies in their recollection.
If the forensic evidence and eye witnesses support Wilson's story then the DA has no grounds to indict. If they don't support Wilson then he should indict. Not every shooting is a crime.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I believe every fatal shooting should go to a jury. Even if the only suggested crime is criminal negligence.
I think the outcome is serious enough that it warrants a public trial. Not a secret meeting, in which the public has no idea whether evidence was presented honestly or in some sort of kangaroo court style.
If a person lies dead, the public should be able to see whether or not justice is taking place. Not simply be told 'we found no reason to go to court'.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and well established. If the shooting meets that standard then there should be no trial.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Wilson, under stress, unleashed his latent mutant ability of control over gravity. Section 8 found out and that is why he was whisked away from the scene. I hear he teamed up with Thor fighting robots in some distant galaxy.
Swear to Koresh that's the truth.
hack89
(39,171 posts)They have evidence. I do not.
onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)They all told similar accounts each from their vantage points. None of them were friends or communicated so they didn't create a story.
There is no human on the planet that is going to run toward someone pointing a gun at them shooting as many times as quickly as they can.
We also have the independent dr who completed the autopsy. It does NOT line up with the story made up by the cop.
The facts are that a white cop shot a black man in cold blood for jay walking in broad daylight. Period.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)For #1 - getting all the facts before coming to a conclusion is essential to real justice.
For #2 - I believe that while there is a race issue, there is a larger issue of wanton police violence against citizens of all colors, genders, ages, and conditions, and a complete lack of lawful recourse against these villains. If, tomorrow, everyone woke up with the exact same shade of skin, police violence would still be a rampant problem. At the same time I can acknowledge that black people suffer from this problem more often than others because the implementation of law enforcement in general, in this country, is blatantly racist.
For #4 - goes back to #1, nothing wrong with collecting facts and evidence. Where I diverge from the norm is that I consider the possibility that the person filling out the report may not be competent or honest.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)in particular? that issue the reason for the protests in Ferguson. these recent protests do highlight our increasing militarized police force, that is victimizing more and more people. however, there is a long history of questionable police killings of african-americans, and that issue is this protest is about...and the watts riots. that issue, i believe, is the cause of every single protest/riot in black communities since the 60's.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)We can't hold Wilson responsible for the failings of Police everywhere. No more than we can hold all of the Russian population for crimes against Ukraine.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i responded to the suggestion that "the larger issue" is the militarization of police in america. i suggest "the larger issue" is the continued assault on african americans by police departments. do you have a comment that is relevant to that issue?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)All around the ginormous "elephant" under our nation's "living room rug."
And, the racism endemic among our militarized police--particularly among those of the paler persuasion--gets rationalized, explained, excused, and otherwise dismissed.
Shall we call this the "Fox Trot and Dodge"?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
yeah...that big, fat pink elephant is just a pet Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I hope to hell that yown is not looted and burned to the ground.
murray hill farm
(3,650 posts)But depending on how it goes, it won't just be this one town in the USA that needs to be prepared for the uprising of the people against the injustice.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I disagree with this article.
Autopsies are scientific, while eye-witness accounts are not scientific. A person wanting to see the scientific evidence that is being gathered may not be motivated by skin color biases.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)as seen by some of the spin around the leaked autopsy reports.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)However, I wouldn't automatically assume someone was racist for wanting to see the results of an autopsy. That is fallacious thinking.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And then people start 'interpreting them', which is right back to being 'not scientific'. Prosecutors will come up with one story that fits the autopsy, defense a different story that also fits the autopsy. One (or maybe both) is pure fiction, but still fits the autopsy.
As to 'assuming someone is racist', the whole OP is about the tactics we see over and over from people who have an agenda that includes inaction. The longer you can push something into the future, the less pressure there usually is to actually do something, and the more chance the status quo can remain unchanged. In this case, as in so many, the 'status quo' is that police can simply shoot black men and not face any consequences.
Justified shooting? Unjustified shooting? Take it to trial.
It's long past time that police should simply get a 'pass' on facing trial when they shoot someone. If it's justified, they'll be cleared quickly enough.
EVERY single time someone shoots and kills another person in this country, there should be a trial, even if only for criminal negligence.
There are no 'accidents', and even police should be required to prove to a jury that when they kill someone it was 'justified'.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)trial. And there's a lot about the Brown shooting that will only come out if there's a trial.
Wella
(1,827 posts)And there's nothing racist about saying that. We simply don't. There are lots of leaks, rumors of testimony that was different in court than in front of the TV cameras, and the cop's alleged eye socket injury (mentioned early on) has not been talked about in quite some time. (Was that a lie too?) You can be angry at police behavior in general, but about this specific case we are still not totally informed. That doesn't mean that you have chosen a side, it means there isn't enough info.
And don't start posting blog links. Blogs don't know anything either.
mythology
(9,527 posts)http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
So yes, I believe that scientific evidence should be used to support or disprove eyewitness testimony. And no matter how many times you call me, or anybody else a racist for that, you're still wrong. Likewise, no matter how many people unthinkingly agree with you, you'll still be wrong.
By waiting for the facts you avoid situations like the Duke lacrosse team incident, or the woman in Louisiana who lit herself on fire and blamed guys in white hoods, or any other number of countless situations. In justice, it's far more important to be right than to be first. But obviously that won't stop people from leaping to conclusions.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)If it were one eye witness, I'd agree, but when several independent people say the same thing right away, that's pretty significant.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)has ANYONE who parrots that actually read any of the links? apparently not!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Wilson was having a shitty day, for whatever reason. Saw two teens walking out in the middle of the street and told them to get on the sidewalk. He noticed they were not complying as he drove off...that was the second thing that pissed him off that day...so he burned rubber getting back to where they were. He pulls up right on them, opens the door and it bounces off Brown and slams shut...third thing to piss him off...then one or both of the kids laugh and that DOES IT. Instantly Wilson goes into a rage, scares the piss out of both kids, pulls out his firearm. At that point both kids bolt, he take aim at the biggest target and guns down Brown.
It would explain why he fled the crime scene - how would you explain to your supervisor you shot a kid, because he laughed at you? You don't. You try and get away with it.
phil89
(1,043 posts)because a kid laughed at him... And decided to shoot him to death. What world do you live in??
Rex
(65,616 posts)SO what? A cop is a robot and can never snap? What world do you live in? Apparently not the real one where people do just that every day.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)third act in this hypothetical sequence, first being as yet unknown, second being opening door and having it swing back shut on him and third being Mike or maybe Dorian laughing.
Tell me again, how did that fucking gun get out of that killer cop's holster?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)his roids, meth or speed? But surely the drug screening they performed on Wilson showed no drugs in his system. After all, they did a tox screen on Mike Brown and found infintesimal trace amounts of THC in his blood. So surely they also tested Wilson.
Oh wait . . .
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)When I say "I don't have all the facts", what I mean is "I don't have all the facts". No more, and no less.
The fourth point is almost too ridiculous to mock:
By saying, “let’s see what the autopsy says” we are saying, “I need a white doctor to tell me what really happened because I’m not going to believe the eye witness accounts of a bunch of black kids.”
If a white doctor did the autopsy, and he or she says that a person was shot in the chest, and some 'eyewitness' black kids say that the person was shot in the back...then, YES, I'm going to believe the white doctor! I would believe the same if it were a black doctor, and white eyewitness kids. I would believe an Indian doctor over old, white, eyewitnesses.
To be as clear as I can possibly be........If a doctor performs a documented autopsy, and tells me 'A' happened, and eyewitnesses tell me that 'A' didn't happen, but rather "B' happened (even though there is no evidence at all to support it), then I believe the doctor, every time.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...and the case being made may not be it.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)Is politics are in the forefront of this so-called investigation headed by the DA and his Grand Jury, to say nothing of the failure of leadership of the governor. If there's an indictment of this policeman who killed an unarmed teenager, I will eat my hat.
Post-racial America my ass!
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)There was only one person who made an autopsy, and that was Dr. Michael Baden.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't see how it is reasonable to bring up the color of his skin.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)He is a part of a corrupt white power structure. Apparently, the DA is a part of that structure too. Think of southern towns in the 60's. Ferguson seems to fit that model.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)So that point fails spectacularly. Seriously, bringing up the skin color of the doctor absolutely 100% shows racist bias.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)is what i was referring to. yeah...skin color is sooooo irrelevant in post-racial america. that fact that the family felt the need to hire another medical examiner, from NY, is because they didn't trust the first one. and of course, race has absolutely no bearing on any of this, none at all. that's why we are not even talking about it. that's why the KKK is threatening to kill people...nothing at all to do with race...nothing at all.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)"We don't need any facts because facts are death to agenda and bias even when that agenda/bias is racist or has racist elements".
"We don't need any information other than the race of who was shot and who did the shooting because we're so feeble minded to imagine that absolutely everything happens for no other reason than race, and it doesn't matter that not one single person actually involved in the incident like Browns' friend that was with him (Johnson), Brown's family, the witnesses that spoke out to the media or the protesters ever said a single thing about race, and never mind how racist it is to blame everything that happens solely on one's race whatever it is".
"I'm sad about this too, but... oh shit here comes those pesky facts again - shut up about facts, we don't need or want any facts... they put a big dent in the agenda and bias. Never mind that the family needs the truth in order to heal as best they're able because losing a loved one is always grievous regardless of the circumstances... we don't care if the family wallows in grief and anger for the rest of their lives because of a false belief we gave them that their loved one's death was entirely senseless and based solely on his race."
"We don't want to learn anything from an autopsy because it might show some facts that we don't want (we already told you to shut up about facts!), and never mind that it was a white person that the family hired to do a second autopsy or how racist it is to discount an autopsy by a white person as though their being white alone makes them biased and dishonorable."
There's only one reason to ignore facts, and it's never a good one. There's no way to ascertain the truth of anything without facts... even if those facts go against what you want to believe, but that also makes facts so important otherwise there's no reason for anyone to change beliefs that are wrong. Worse, it encourages ignoring truth and embracing ignorance solely for a personal bias and agenda.
Having a false belief that absolutely everything is about race regardless of facts makes it impossible for even the most assinine racists to change because it is those facts that challenge ridiculous racist beliefs. Worse, it forces people to believe that nothing they do can change their circumstances or feel included in the human race and makes them racist themselves distrusting anyone outside of their own race falsely believing them all to be racist against them. The only way to get rid of racism is to directly challenge it in both speech and action not by coveting it and encouraging people to fear and distrust anyone not of their own race.
The OP's screed is so full of bullshit and racism itself it's frightening. How on earth can anyone justify this shit? It reeks of ignorance and racism and encourages more of it. It's disgusting.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Where black people are murdered by police, and others, and often walk away scot-free. This the america I grew up in...the one where my friend Ronnie Settles was beaten to death and hung in a jail cell in Signal Hill, Ca. And no...it was not 1885: it was closer to 1985. This is the America where outrage about the OJ trial overshadowed the conviction of one of Medgar Evers murderers...some 40 years after the crime. Yeah...it is about race, at least for black people like me. Maybe not so much for you.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Wait for it though - the black friend in the third grade quip is coming. 
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i marched for civil rights for you ingrates!
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)
Solomon
(12,310 posts)Says the one ignoring all the facts! You're hilarious in your constant defense of this asshole cop. Facts are determined AT TRIAL.
You are what's scary here.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Because there will be no indictment. The relevant facts have already been established: I was scared of the scary black guy. End of story. When will America be outraged by this same, old, tired scenario? Never. And they accuse US of "playing the race card." It is a fucking joke.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)And you might have a good 10-20 years on me.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The cop should lose his job and the only good thing to come out of this is the public found out the cops are getting military stuff and have turned into ASSHOLES. (More so than before)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Pennsylvannia's Attorney General rode to election on her promise to get to the bottom of the grown men who have been involved in watching a horrific porn site, that featured violence against women as well as sex. This information came to light as the lady DA attempted to find out why pedophile Sandusky was able to stall off being arrested for some three years.
But her efforts are being hampered by - WAIT FOR IT - the fact that she's not being allowed to pursue these white men.
Because WAIT FOR IT - they happen to be men who are employed by PA police departments, and are even her fellow district attorneys!
So it is far better to be an actual pedophile, violating children for decades, and to have acquaintances who' re caught up in a world of violent smut and porn, than to be an innocent African American teenager, who is simply trying to walk around in his own neighborhood.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)I am so disgusted by the obtuseness of some people who stubbornly refuse to acknowlege reality. There is not a single black person in America who believes that grand jury will indict. Meanwhile, we're supposed to PRETEND the failure to indict will be "based on facts." I hope I have to eat these words...but I don't think I will.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)arent the only illegal videos to watch are the ones that involve children?
I mean sure she might be able to go after the people who own the site (if they live in Pennsylvania) but then what makes you think that the DA for Pennsylvania would even be allowed to investigate the men who watched the videos themselves if they arent illegal?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 19, 2014, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)
But her original investigation was concerning why it took so long to get the victims of Sandusky's perverseness to have their day in court.
I don't know if this attempt to block her from investigation of the porn habits of some of the top police and legal beagles in Pensylvania is simply related to the points you mention, or if it is a strategy used, the powerful helping their own, to cover up what went on with Mr Sandusky.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)(even disturbing ones like these ones) are relevant.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Through the government provided email system. (Including the police department's email system.)
Now if the men involved in sharing these websites also shared a link to a site for pedophilia, then it could be a far bigger case. But it seems the DA's investigation has been shut down.
Whether she has had all the email ready already by her staff or not, I don't know. So right now I don't know if this is a case of the
1) smoking video that includes child porn is being hidden
or 2) there is no smoking video
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)"Now if the men involved in sharing these websites also shared a link to a site for pedophilia"
Either they shared such a link or they didnt and if they did then thats relevant but whats not relevant is the other adult website they visited lsgally which is probably why that isnt being pursued.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The remark that your response 299 is a response to.
Remember - an individual has no right to privacy with regards to an "other" provided email system.
So if I am looking at porn on the email site my spouse pays for (As is my case) - that should be hands off unless a warrant is served.
But if I am looking at porn on the website provided by an employer, especially if that employer is a governmental agency (which is therefore paid for by the tax payers) there is no privacy expectations. The employer has full ability to look into my email activity without any warrant.
So what I was trying to make clear (and remember I am mostly agreeing WITH you) is that I don't know how far along the lady State Attorney got in her investigation, and whether:
1) an actual "smoking gun" video exists that includes a link to child porn and it is being hidden, as she wasn't given sufficient time or resources to find it before they quashed her efforts
Or
2) there is no "smoking gun" video and the Republicans in PA legitimately are calling off a witch hunt.
Farmbrook
(48 posts)As a black person myself, please I am sorry to disappoint my fellow black people and people in general that believe in justice and fairness, this case will NEVER be tried because the victim is black. Stop waiting for the result of the grand jury. I know the result already just by looking at the pattern. This is the reality since the time of slavery. Black lives are cheap and we don't matter. I see all the excuses being made for Wilson, it is sickening. Michael Brown is not alive to tell his side of the story and instead people choose to believe Wilson's account. So if you look at police killings, especially of a minority, Police always makes sure that their victims are dead because if the victims live, most times they are convicted.
Talking about Brown's size against Wilson's size. Did you watch the video of the cop killing in New York of Eric Garner. Look at the tiny cop that killed the largely built Mr. Garner. Someone who is trained, regardless of your size can take down just about anybody. Don't forget that Wilson is a trained cop and was let go by another police department for racial issues. So quit giving me that lame excuses about Brown's size
This is not about Mr. Brown's size or Wilson being afraid or the alleged prior robbery by Brown, rather this is the execution style of an UNARMED BLACK KID. Period. I love how people are always willing to make excuses for these killer cops but not for the black victims. Go back to the sixties and look at police brutality and how cops seldom pay for their crimes then you will agree with me that nothing will come out of this case also. The prosecutors or the grand jury cannot be trusted down there, they are all corrupt and if you believe in this grand jury then I have a piece of cloud to sell you. Fellow black people please stop hoping and looking for justice. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. WE LIVE IN TWO JUSTICE SYSTEMS. Wilson will keep his job and go on to murder another black kid. End of story.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts) noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i know that grand jury will never return an indictment...never. the entire system is corrupt and biased to the core.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)dont mean shit in the end.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the salient fact has been established: the cop was afraid of the black man. that fact is usually sufficient for no indictment or acquittal.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts) never mind the reality of african-americans being brutalized by police, with impunity, since...forever. "the facts" will validate all the police apologists, per usual. and the racists, too. "i was scared of the black guy: is a reliable defense in ameriKKKa, per usual. gollygee
(22,336 posts)I seem to recall that at least a couple of the witnesses tried to give police reports about what they saw but were not allowed to. I would be interested to see if all the grand jury is even aware of all of the witnesses.
Red State Rebel
(2,903 posts)We will know exactly who was called, who testified and what they said. Trying to make a decision on bits and pieces of information is just frustrating - I'm anxious to review the transcripts for myself.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)though i am not certain all the facts will be presented to the jury. we will see.
Response to gollygee (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed