No indictment in the mike brown case

good post Joe

Dont tell me justice was served this time, when it hasnt been in the past. But this time we got it right, so we are all good. Nope that doesnt work and its not right. So burn it down

(1) Justice was served in this case. If it has not been in the past, it does not make it right to indict a person for a crime regardless of their own guilt or innocence. Two wrongs do not make a right. Making someone a sacrificial lamb to suffer for the wrongs of others is a bad, bad road to tread and, in my opinion, patently unfair.

(2) We are not all good. Abuses of authority need to be fully investigated. If the Justice Dept. or the local State govt. hasn't done so already, a full investigation of the Ferguson PD and its pattern and practices should be initiated. Something is broken in the community when the police are so mistrusted that no matter what the evidence may or may not show, the police are assumed at all times to be acting in bad faith.

Anarchy - "burn it down" - however, is not the answer and not one that (at least I hope it wouldn't) will resonate with the vast majority of Americans.

(1) Justice was served in this case. If it has not been in the past, it does not make it right to indict a person for a crime regardless of their own guilt or innocence. Two wrongs do not make a right. Making someone a sacrificial lamb to suffer for the wrongs of others is a bad, bad road to tread and, in my opinion, patently unfair.

(2) We are not all good. Abuses of authority need to be fully investigated. If the Justice Dept. or the local State govt. hasn't done so already, a full investigation of the Ferguson PD and its pattern and practices should be initiated. Something is broken in the community when the police are so mistrusted that no matter what the evidence may or may not show, the police are assumed at all times to be acting in bad faith.

Anarchy - "burn it down" - however, is not the answer and not one that (at least I hope it wouldn't) will resonate with the vast majority of Americans.

On no 1 we are going to have to disagree, point 2 i agree, and pt3 there comes a time where burn it down does reasonates especially with Redskins fans and the Redskins organization.

The US was founded on a point in time where burn it down (or pour tea in the sea) made sense, so there do come points in human history that it makes sense. Is this one of those points in time in US history? Certainly the 1960's were, maybe this is, and I tend to think we may not be that far off, but this rage in Ferguson seems misguided to me. There have been several threads of police abuse, and on most I side with the civilian group, even on Ferguson at first I sided against the police, but assuming that the facts presented by JR are reasonably accurate and representative of the case, then as Joe said, this isn't the case to start the fire with.

The US was founded on a point in time where burn it down (or pour tea in the sea) made sense, so there do come points in human history that it makes sense. Is this one of those points in time in US history? Certainly the 1960's were, maybe this is, and I tend to think we may not be that far off, but this rage in Ferguson seems misguided to me. There have been several threads of police abuse, and on most I side with the civilian group, even on Ferguson at first I sided against the police, but assuming that the facts presented by JR are reasonably accurate and representative of the case, then as Joe said, this isn't the case to start the fire with.

Easy to say when you not living in a community where people fear the police and everyone is treated as a criminal. Lotta people dont know that feeling. I say what better time than now to burn down the police department and city hall. These people are recognized within the community only as criminals and that is not right. So you know, since we all criminals regardless burn baby burn

On No. 1 - Okay. We've reasonably disagreed before, that's fine. However, are you really saying that, even if the GJ thought Wilson innocent of any criminal behavior, it should have indicted him b/c, in the past, he or people with whom he associates may have done bad things?

Are you really espousing the doctrine that, to determine criminal conduct in a particular instance, we should be bringing in reputations and past associations? You don't see how that could be incredibly damaging to defendant rights? All of sudden, it's not "Did you commit a crime?" it's "Are you popular within the community?"

Or are you only applying that to cases you think it appropriate?


On No. 3 (and leaving the Redskins aside because I, for one, am tired of the burn it down mentality that comes every three years):

When burn it down resonates with a minority group to the degree that violence to person and property are condoned, it is going to face significant opposition from vast majority of those who see violence as a threat to their security.

Regardless of the injustice, whether imagined or real (and I would suggest there is plenty of both), I suggest to you society as a whole will simply not succumb to demands made by violence. Whether you believe it fair or unfair, the judicial system "works" for too many people by providing protection, relief and a peaceful forum for conflict resolution whether they be civil or criminal. In every locality across the US, the courts grind through the best they making literally 1000's of judgments great and small every day.

It's not perfect but, if you burn it down, you will find yourself with something worse - I guarantee it.

Easy to say when you not living in a community where people fear the police and everyone is treated as a criminal. Lotta people dont know that feeling. I say what better time than now to burn down the police department and city hall. These people are recognized within the community only as criminals and that is not right. So you know, since we all criminals regardless burn baby burn

True enough. Just b/c a statement is easier for some to say than others, however, doesn't invalidate the correctness of the underlying statement (nor, for that matter, does it validate an incorrect statement). As CRed said, this was not the case to start to the fire. If the minority community says, "Regardless of actual guilt or innocence, we will not listen to the evidence when you say one of us is a criminal and will resort to mob violence," it is simply ignoring the rule of law - the very same thing it is saying is wrong when applied to them.

It's just this simple, two wrongs don't make a right. Ever.

I am sure you see it differently, but all last night's reaction to the decision did for me was validate that this was a community with high levels of disregard for civil society - Burn it down? They were burning and looting stores and property that had nothing to do with City Hall or law enforcement. Clearly, there was a substantial element that obeys the law only b/c it is enforced by police officers and, when they aren't there to do so, mayhem. In such a community, law enforcement has only two choices aggressive policing or surrender. We saw, last night, what happens when law enforcement "surrendered." Any law-abiding citizen, of any race, itching to move to Ferguson any time soon?

You want to protest? Fine. Throw things at the police and destroy public property as a statement of civil disobedience - if you're willing to stand up and say "I did it and here's why." Okay. Simple mayhem and destruction b/c you feel like you're mistreated. Not so okay.

If you want fair treatment under the law, then you need to obey it, and challenge it when it is unfairly applied to you - our system has all sorts of mechanisms for lawfully doing so without violence. If you think the law unfair, then you need to change it (like they did in the 60's). However, if you don't like the law and so refuse to obey it or obey those who enforce it, all you do is become a criminal and so continue the cycle.

1. every parent of a black male should talk with their son at a very early age about what to do if they are stopped by a police officer. talk to them about how officers have a heightened sense of "danger and fear for their life" when an officer is near a black male such as themselves. Tell them to not give an overly nervous officer any reason what-so-ever. And then tell them that despite all of this .. they could still be shot or killed because the officer "saw the perpetrator reach for his waist band" line.

2. I trust the system in this case. this is different from trayvon martin imo which was a serious miscarriage of justice.

3. Why was brown's body laying dead 100-150 yds away from the vehicle but the officer testified that brown was 20-30 yds away when he started to charge? Why would an unarmed brown "reach for his waistband" as he was charging the officer per officer's testimony? Why does it always seem officers need to fire 8-10 rounds instead of 2-3?


sad for everyone including the officer and his family who, im sure, had no wish or intent to take another person's life when he woke up that morning.

knowing first hand how bad and corrupt police can be around here, i cant imagine how bad they are in missourri if you are a black male.

Is Don Lemon still running around talking about the smell of weed in the air with his tear gas mask on?

Folks thats part of the problem right there

1. every parent of a black male should talk with their son at a very early age about what to do if they are stopped by a police officer. talk to them about how officers have a heightened sense of "danger and fear for their life" when an officer is near a black male such as themselves. Tell them to not give an overly nervous officer any reason what-so-ever. And then tell them that despite all of this .. they could still be shot or killed because the officer "saw the perpetrator reach for his waist band" line.

2. I trust the system in this case. this is different from trayvon martin imo which was a serious miscarriage of justice.

3. Why was brown's body laying dead 100-150 yds away from the vehicle but the officer testified that brown was 20-30 yds away when he started to charge? Why would an unarmed brown "reach for his waistband" as he was charging the officer per officer's testimony? Why does it always seem officers need to fire 8-10 rounds instead of 2-3?


sad for everyone including the officer and his family who, im sure, had no wish or intent to take another person's life when he woke up that morning.

knowing first hand how bad and corrupt police can be around here, i cant imagine how bad they are in missourri if you are a black male.I don't doubt that being black in america is hard. But in this case, how hard is it to teach your kids "Don't get into fist fights with police?"