The white double standard is painful tonight.

[Drunken Irishman]

I see it with my friends all over Facebook whenever someone criticizes the grand jury. They are the first to point out that we should take the independent grand jury's decision and accept it. Yet these are the same people who, even today, rant and rave about the original OJ verdict of not guilty.

They're hypocrites. They don't accept that jury result but I've been told at least a dozen times since last night by my white friends that I should accept the grand jury and move on - even though, two decades later, people still haven't moved on from the Simpson verdict.

Fucking tired of the double standard in American society.

[marions ghost]

1. People have far too much faith

in the dysfunctional American legal system.

[davidn3600]

3. Well what other system out there would you rather have?

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Any system that doesn't hold 25% of the world's prisoners

even though it only has 5% of the world's population.

Duh.

[davidn3600]

6. That's not because of flaws in the justice system

That's because of the war on drugs and minimum sentencing guidelines. Those are mainly pushed by politicians who want to sound tough on crime at election time.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. The politicians/legislators who make the laws are part of the justice system...

...and it is indeed a flawed system.

Educate yourself before posting please.

[davidn3600]

11. You are combining everything and blaming it on the entire system

You can have the best system in the world and it will be flawed if the people running it are racist and/or corrupt.

Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. But police, lawyers, judges, and jurors are not.

The only way to root out racism in the system is to root it out throughout the society at large.

[noiretextatique]

22. um...that IS a flaw in the system. eom

[JonLP24]

19. Seems the Dutch and Nordic Countries are tops in the rule of law index

US actually scores pretty high but there is an issue

And the bad? According to this same study, millions of Americans can’t use this fine system because they can’t afford it. They have legal rights—to child support, Medicare benefits or protection against an improper home foreclosure—but they find these rights meaningless because they can’t enforce them.

“The U.S. legal system is similar to its medical system; in many aspects it is the best in the world, but many people don’t get any services at all,” says Juan Carlos Botero, director of the Rule of Law Index project.

A plethora of government and volunteer programs provide free legal aid, but they are overstretched. “Any local legal aid office will tell you that at least two-thirds of those who walk through their doors aren’t getting help because there aren’t enough resources,” says H. Ritchey Hollenbaugh, chair of the ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services and a partner at Carlile Patchen & Murphy in Columbus, Ohio.

<snip>

It’s not easy to determine the quality of a country’s legal system, but that hasn’t stopped the World Justice Project, which was founded in 2006 by the American Bar Association and other organizations representing various disciplines but is now an independent not-for-profit organization. The WJP interviewed more than 2,000 legal experts and 66,000 laypeople in 66 countries about 52 factors related to their nations’ adherence to the rule of law. The organization then compiled the results in its latest annual Rule of Law Index, providing a multifactor, quantitative measure of the various countries’ adherence to the rule of law.

“The United States obtains high marks in most dimensions of the rule of law,” the index states. “The country stands out for its well-functioning system of checks and balances and for its good results in guaranteeing civil liberties,” and “the civil justice system is independent and free of undue influence.”

But the study also found some significant problems, noting that “the civil justice system … remains inaccessible to disadvantaged groups,” “legal assistance is expensive or unavailable,” and “the gap between rich and poor individuals in terms of both actual use of and satisfaction with the civil courts system remains significant.”

When comparing nations on accessibility of civil justice, the survey ranked the U.S. 11th out of 12 countries in North America and Western Europe. Among high-income nations worldwide, the U.S. ranked 20th of 23. Among its high-income peers, the U.S. beat out only Italy, Croatia and Poland.

A big reason the U.S. received these disappointing scores was because so many of its residents have no access to legal counsel. When comparing nations on the ability of their people to obtain legal counsel, the U.S. scored 50th out of all 66 nations surveyed.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/unequal_justice_u.s._trails_high-income_nations_in_serving_civil_legal_need

My original answers were going to be none but that I recognize for the most part it is a show. Sometimes it is set-up against you, prosecutors as well as lawyers care about their W-L record and also have career ambitions where the politics involved can uneven the playing field. Even if someone is convicted of the crime they actually committed, they're sent to a place where they'll likely develop long-term negative psychological effects.

I can often tell who has recently been to prison when they adopt the culture's frowning on weakness, acquiring a "might is right" philosophy.

[Warpy]

2. The GJ really didn't have much of a choice

Wilson lied his ass off but according to MO law, if a cop feels threatened, he's permitted to use deadly force.

I don't blame the GJ. I blame the crap laws in that state that allow cops to turn into vigilantes and bigoted cops to turn into flat out murderers.

[sunnystarr]

14. Not so ..

Despite the plain-language reading of §563.046 that a law enforcement can use deadly force to make an arrest when he reasonably believes the person making the arrest has committed a felony, in the aftermath of Tennessee v. Garner and subsequent changes to Missouri case law and jury instructions, the use of deadly force to make an arrest of a non-dangerous fleeing felon is not permitted under Missouri law.

As it happens, the very well equipped Law of Self Defense Reference Library has in its possession the relevant sections of the Missouri Approved Instructions–Criminal (MAI-CR), Third Edition (2014). As such, I can provide the full-length of the relevant jury instruction, MAI-CR §306.14, “Justification: Use of Force by a Law Enforcement Officer.” (I include only the portions relevant to an officer’s use of deadly force, to fit the facts in the Ferguson shooting.) (Also, my apologies for my delay in presenting this information–I failed to carry along the LOSD Reference Library during my just-completed vacation.)


306.14 JUSTIFICATION: USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

PART A–GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

One of the issues (as to Count _____) (in this case) is whether the use of force by the defendant against [name of victim] was lawful. In this state, the use of force (including the use of deadly force) by a law enforcement officer in making an arrest or in preventing escape after arrest is lawful in certain situations.

A law enforcement officer can lawfully use force to make an arrest or to prevent escape if he is making a lawful arrest or an arrest which he reasonably believes to be lawful. An arrest is lawful if the officer (reasonably believes that the person being arrested (has committed) (or) (is committing) a crime) (is executing an arrest warrant which he believes to be valid).

In making a lawful arrest or preventing escape after such an arrest, a law enforcement officer is entitled to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.

A law enforcement officer in making an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by the person being arrested.

But in making an arrest or preventing escape, a law enforcement officer is not entitled to use deadly force, that is, force which he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes that the person being arrested is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or that the person may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay (emphasis added).

And, even then, a law enforcement officer may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes the use of such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.

PART B–SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

On the issue of use of force by a law enforcement officer (as to Count _____), you are instructed as follows:

First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer (making) (or) (attempting to make) a lawful arrest (or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest) or [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and

Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay) [emphasis added], and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.

The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty (under Count ____).

As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body.

Wilson’s Use of Deadly Force Would Be Unlawful Absent Imminent Deadly Threat

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/did-mo-law-allow-for-deadly-force-arrest-of-mike-brown/

However initially the GJ was given the law without these subsequent changes to Missouri case law in the jury instructions and then later given the correct instructions which added to the confusion. Accidental? I doubt it. I think the Prosecutor knew exactly what he was doing.

[madashelltoo]

5. You do realize you're talking about people who

Sacrifice their lives, the lives of their children, time and treasure defending rich people's interest in foreign lands. Insist on spreading democracy around the world when they don't practice it here. Condemn apartheid in other countries while practicing it here. Ignore abuses of minorities and call themselves Christians. Have no problem with privatized prison slavery. None of this is their problem until one of their children gets caught up in the net of nonsense. Blinders, you say? It's deeper than that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. The problem is that if people embrace social justice they ostracize themselves socially

Because the problems are deep enough that you look like a raving fool complaining about it among non-like-minded people. It used to be that there was a place for liberals, lefties, libertarians and populists, people like that, other people were educated enough to at least disagree with them on the issues, tell them to move to Russia, whatever. But now people are, sadly, "just too damn dumb to understand" (not that I agree with that asshole who said that recently -- his ideology is part of the problem) and their politics is handed them by the mass media as part of a workplace consumer package.

[Tsiyu]

10. ^^^^This^^^^

Although the world has always called people who "don't go with the status quo" heretics.

Mass ignorance is celebrated today more than ever. It's cool to sound like you dropped out of the Dark Ages, to speak like you can't read and to act as if you don't understand anyone who reads books or tries to figure anything out.

Gossip is the pastime of a lot of people. They're such boring, lazy, apathetic human beings, they'd have nothing else to talk about if they couldn't make someone else look bad. I just smile if I have to be around those sorts and avoid their toxic selves at all costs otherwise.

Anyone who can look around this world and think it's all right is a fool. We all just disagree on how to fix it. But silence in the face of evil is for crazy people. Holding in your outrage will drive you wacky. You have to speak your piece in increments, here and there.

And just wait for people to see things on their own. No matter how much you care, there are a lot of people who are angry at you for caring, and they are persuasive and powerful.

People will wake up when they're ready, I suppose.

Anyway, effective or not, viewed as crazy or not, I'd rather be the person who disagrees openly about wrongdoing than the coward who lets it go on for his or her own self interest. We are our brother's and sister's keepers.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Thanks Tsiyu

[Tsiyu]

13. De nada

[kelliekat44]

8. A riot and property damage has never fixed anything.

Except for the Boston Tea Party. Or the Bastille. Or Stonewall. Or the Berlin Wall. Etc.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

15. I think it's human nature to be hypocritical, but reasonable people check themselves and keep that

sh*t to a minimum. The RW has no inclination to self-examination. Their hypocrisy, along with their unfounded outrage, has become thoroughly unbridled.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

16. I agree that there is a strong streak of racism running through Ferguson police

...plus a bias to allow police to literally get away with murder. Plus, Republicans and Tea Party members who are absolutely gleeful over this. You can read their nauseating trash on the Discussionist.

That said, if you're going to compare the white response to the OJ verdict - all they did was "rant and rave". Not burn down businesses that had absolutely nothing to do with the police.

What the people of Ferguson need to do is to vote. Since they don't, they end up being represented by the people elected by the ones who do.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[noiretextatique]

25. disenfranchisement

Is real. So while I agree people should vite, Ferguson seems like the kind of place that is ripe for GOP disenfranchisement schemes, now sanctioned by scouts. That is a serious catch-22 that democrats need to both acknowledge and do something about.

[Kablooie]

17. I'm white and I think it's totally screwed.

The system is totally biased against the AfAm population.
Something has to change.
This issue will just keep coming back again and again until the justice system can provide true justice equally to everyone.

[JonLP24]

18. Ranting and raving about OJ should have been a clue

They act like he's the only person to ever get away with murder. How many years did Roy Bryant get away with it? Now we have George Zimmerman.

Pride, Power, & Protection: Cousin Of Emmett Till Reacts To Ferguson Grand Jury Verdict

“This is not just an issue for Ferguson,” Obama said at the White House minutes after the grand jury’s decision was announced. “This is an issue for America.” For our family it began on August 28, 1955 when Emmett Till, a 14-year-old from Chicago, was murdered while visiting relatives in Mississippi by two white men for whistling at a white woman. Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam beat him and gouged out one of his eyes, before shooting him through the head and disposing of his body in the Tallahatchie River, weighting it with a 70-pound cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire. Three days later, Till’s body was discovered and retrieved from the river. Mamie Till Mobley, Emmett’s mother, insisted on a open-casket funeral in Chicago, because she wanted the world to see the face of racism. Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam were acquitted by an all white male jury and later sold their story detailing of how they taught him a lesson for $4000 to Look Magazine.

Mamie Till Mobley called the murder trial of Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam in 1955 a “farce”, and often spoke about how “Mississippi justice was turned upside down, where innocent people were punished and guilty people went free.” The Grand Jury indictment process of Officer Darren Wilson was just that, a farce, as there is a steady beat of judicial injustice that plagues the black community almost sixty years after Emmett Till’s murder, not just in Mississippi, but the entire United States justice system remains upturned as a continuum of “not guilty” verdicts are rendered when white people murder blacks. Officer Darren Wilson joins the ranks with Roy Bryant, J.W. Milam, George Zimmerman and countless other unpunished guilty murderers acquitted for gunning down black youth…black boys.

Last night conversations reminiscent to that Mamie Till Mobley had with her son Emmett Till, in an effort to educate him on the ways of Jim Crow and what was proper versus improper behavior in the South, ensued across the country explaining to black children about racism and the consequences of the color of their skin. It was heartbreaking trying to explain the villainy of yesterday’s verdict to several young boys in our family as they cried uncontrollably, full of anger and consumed by fear of becoming the next Mike Brown or Emmett Till. They continuously asked the question, “how did this happen” when It was obvious to the youngest child what the grand jury chose to ignore. Children today are witnessing the equivalent to what our ancestors children witnessed when blacks were lynched and hung from trees. We must educate our children about black pride, power and PROTECTION to prepare them for a society that deems them dispensable.

One week prior to the grand jury’s verdict Emmett Till’s name rang out in celebration of a tree planted on Capitol Hill in his memory. As our family was not included in the ceremonious celebration, I grappled with how to express my discontentment and not seem ungrateful for the gesture. While it is considerably appreciated, perhaps a tree wasn’t necessarily the most adequate symbol to use as trees don’t represent protection for black people but remind us of lynchings and how we were considered less than human.


http://globalgrind.com/2014/11/25/cousin-of-emmett-till-reacts-ferguson-grand-jury-verdict/

[maced666]

24. 'They' act like....

Hmm...

[noiretextatique]

26. yep...the poster is referring to white people

Who still bitch and moan about OJ, as if his acquittal was some pivotal event, like landing on the moon. He was ONE of many who got away with murder. The problem was: he is black, and his victims were white. If his victims were black 99.9% of the still upset today would never have given a damn.

[JonLP24]

30. They = people ranting & raving over OJ

I shouldn't make generalizations for people that rant & rave about OJ.

The last time in the outside world the subject of OJ came up, we discussed some details of it. My points mostly had to do with chain-of-custody handling of the DNA evidence which led to an impassioned "He got away with murder!" (he also made a small point about Furhmen not a racist simply because he used the 'N' word--after I pointed out the evidence of racial remarks)

I wondered if he saved the outrage for OJ or shared it for other murderers that weren't convicted.

Believe it or not, another time he was ranting about a heroin user girlfriend that was using his friend and the subject drifted towards his dad who said nothing but the best things about him but was also clear in pointing out that he was a drunk. When it came to his step-mother, different story. He said that almost went forward with a plan to sneak rat poison into her drinks because she "was a drunk who didn't deserve to be with his dad." That creeped me the hell out, says his brother talked him out of it convincing him that he may not get away with it." (Made me wonder about that passion again).

He was very unique among the still upset over OJ crowd so I'll be careful generalizing them in the future.

[oberliner]

20. Who hasn't moved on from the Simpson verdict?

Seems like pretty much everyone has.

[noiretextatique]

27. someone brought it up yesterday

In response to Ferguson. The main that person failed to grasp is that OJ was not a cop.

[noiretextatique]

28. see post #23 eom

[oberliner]

31. Point taken

I see a couple of other OJ-related comments scattered around as well.

[DemocraticWing]

21. It's a tribe menality.

Wilson's white, and he's in our tribe. We're supposed to support our brothers against the "thugs" no matter what. Fuck what's right, or justice/freedom/whatever platitude we use to cover up our racism.

This is America. And it's sick.

[maced666]

23. Did they riot after OJ verdict?

[noiretextatique]

29. who...the KKK?

No. But many white americans took that verdict very personally. When did OJ become a cop?