No indictment in the mike brown case

[JoeRedskin]

Suspected thief assaults you in your vehicle. Attempts to take your gun which discharges in your vehicle. He turns to leave. You confront. He turns and charges. You fire several shots. He continues to charge. You fire a second series of shots.

That description of events matches the forensic evidence and audio evidence at the scene (there is audio evidence that plays a series shots fired, a pause, then a second volley of shots).

Armed or unarmed, if you want to get your ass shot, assault a police officer, ignore his orders to halt and then run at him. Pretty sure that's a recipe for SBP.

Again, lots of interactions with police are demonstrations in police brutality. This was not one of them.




Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Hijinx]

If I shot someone like this cop did I would be in jail. No If ands or buts about it. This cop only gets away with it because he has a uniform on. Period. No one else gets to murder someone and walk away.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

If I shot someone like this cop did I would be in jail. No If ands or buts about it. This cop only gets away with it because he has a uniform on. Period. No one else gets to murder someone and walk away.

The depth of "wrong" and complete misunderstanding of the rule of law in this statement demonstrates your inherent bias on the issue.

If you, as a lawfully armed citizen, pursued an individual after an altercation had ended and took it upon yourself to initiate a second confrontation in which you used deadly force. Yes, you may likely end up in jail charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

That, however, is very different from a law enforcement officer trying to apprehend a suspected criminal who just assaulted the law enforcement officer, made an attempt to grab the law enforcement officer's weapon, ignored the lawful commands of the law enforcement officer, and who was now charging the law enforcement officer in an attempt assault him a second time.

But, by all means, buy into the media's racial spin, make a judgment based on what they tell you, and only trust the judicial process when it rules the way you think it should based on your incomplete, media supplied understanding of the facts.

Pitchforks and torches uber alles!


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[NC_Skins]

He shouldn't have been indicted.

(page 1167 of the grand jury testimony is an eye witness account that backs up cop's story)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgra...-testimony.pdf



Add the firearm report, the dna report and it all matches the cop's version on what happened. This is a no brainer and I wished the public would get behind a better case instead of one where the people in question are innocent.


Nobody gives a fuck about the evidence, and I seriously doubt they care if the cop is guilty or not. They just want him to suffer due to racial injustices in the community.

[Chico23231]

Another sign of a city/police department/prosecutor who has no clue is announcing the verdict of whether to indict...announcing it at night. Cant believe the city would further put its citizens lives in more danger. WTF?

[JoeRedskin]

Again, the police force in Ferguson was not on trial, that's not how it works - guilt by association is not acceptable for anyone. Whether the suspect is a policeman or a minority, you look at the facts of the incident, and only those facts, when deciding to charge someone with a crime. We don't put people on trial and at risk of their liberty b/c of their reputation - or the reputation of those with whom they are associated. Rather, the American justice/judicial system is based on the principle that you can only be tried for the specific crime being alleged.

The prosecutor has a lot of control in the grand jury. He could have gamed the system and gotten an indictment by withholding some evidence or highlighting others. I don't know a whole lot about the practice but I believe prosecutors normally present minimal evidence - just enough to get an indictment. Here, the prosecutor presented a lot of evidence to the GJ both exculpatory and not so. You would have to talk to a criminal prosecutor to find out just how outside the norm such a procedure is, if at all.

At the same time, unlike in a trial, the jurors get to examine witnesses directly and can essentially say "Is that all you have?" Again, I believe the G. Jurors themselves can request subpoenas and more evidence. Ultimately, it is their call.

The issue of Ferguson's police force and racial profiling is a separate matter. There are mechanisms to appeal to State and Federal authorities for review. I believe that some of those actions are in progress. While police must have authority to enforce the law and society has to buy into that for them to be effective, abuse of authority should be severely punished and I don't trust police dept.'s to police their own.

[The reason the punishment must be severe is b/c of the social contract with law enforcement and is the converse of why those who attack law enforcement officers should also be severely punished: "We give you authority to use force against us so that we may have safety in our daily lives. Further, because you place yourself in harm's way for us, we have your back. Because an assault on an officer of the law is an assault on all of us, we will make sure that those who attack or attempt to harm you, as you protect us, are punished to a greater extent than if they attacked one of us directly. In return, you promise not to abuse either the authority given or the protection provided. If you do, we will hold you to the same harsh standards as we hold those who would attempt to undermine the rule of law by attacking you."]

Given the scenes of mob criminality last night, and the distrust of the police force, however, I am not sure how the rule of law will ever be reestablished in that town. It is a sad state when the citizenry can't/won't trust those entrusted to enforce the rule of law because those in authority have abused their authority. I suspect Ferguson is in for a long, dark night of repression and lawlessness (symbolically speaking that is).

One final thought - A recurrent theme is that a black officer shooting an unarmed white guy would be in jail pronto. You can believe what you wish, my belief differs. I suggest to you that, in this case - if Wilson were black and Brown were white, Ferguson's Thin Blue Line would have rallied around the officer just as they did here and the shooting would have made the local news - but not a blip anywhere else - and when the GJ inevitably chose not to indict the black officer not a single riot would have ensued.

In this case, Brown assaulted an officer, ignored his lawful commands, and charged at him. The mob saw one thing, the forensics evidenced another. The "no indictment" decision was right In this case, regardless of: (1) the race of the cop or the dead teen; (2) whether or not Wilson was a sketchy cop; or (3) whether or not the Ferguson PD was a sketchy unit.

Racial hatred/suspicion runs so deep in this country - especially amongst the lower social classes of both whites and blacks. Just don't know if it will ever get better.

[Chico23231]

good post Joe

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

[JoeRedskin]

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.

[over the mountain]

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.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

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?"

[Giantone]

Joe ...



Question ?

I realize criminal and civil trails are two different things but in your opinion how do you think a civil trail (wrongful death) would fare with the same facts and would it be better for the Officer to not have a jury trail ?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

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. <SNIP>.

You know what? Here's what I constantly tell my (white) son:

If you are being stopped by the police, do what they say. Don't argue, don't contradict them, don't think to yourself "He can't tell me that" - particularly if there is any reason to suspect that the cop thinks you or the situation poses danger. De-escalate first by doing exactly what he/she says. Make sure the officer sees you complying and, if necessary tell him what you are doing and how you are intending to do it and then ask him for permission. Make no sudden moves!! If the officer says not to do something, then don't do it - even it means standing there and pissing your pants.

The officer has a badge, a gun, and the inherent right to be confrontational - you do not!!

I don't care if he insults your manhood and calls you every dirty name in the book (Which by the way, happened to me in my teen years - more than once. I grew up in PG County in the 70's/80's - need I say more?). No matter how he provokes you, say and do nothing that could be deemed an aggressive action. Shut up, take it, and return indignity with civility. Do everything in your power to get to the end of the tunnel until you can call me, a lawyer or peacefully appeal to a judge. Until then, the officer has complete, unchallengable authority - act accordingly.

BTW - When I was 16, my dad told me the same damn thing after I got picked up and taken to the station for not doing exactly what the cop told me to do, the second he told me to do it. [Picking up litter I dropped as the officer happened to be driving by - I did or said something to piss him off, don't even remember what, just know my first response was nothing akin to "Yes Sir!"]

Every parent needs to have this conversation with their kids. Period. I KNOW that there are bad cops - particularly, bad beat cops. I get that there are racist cops out there. With that said, it's the bad cops to whom you need to "Listen & Obey" the most because they are the ones looking for an excuse to abuse you AND will be the ones most experienced at covering it up.

Obey first, seek redress later. AND, recognize you may never get the redress to which you believe you are entitled. It's not right, it's not fair but it's life. At the appropriate time, and in the appropriate manner, try to change it.