The 'thugification' of black young men is probably the new slur of the age--the new n word. Even our most gruesome murderers are not supposed to be shot on site. A police officer killed a man. The focus should be on him, but what I have noticed is that whenever we're talking about whether or not he did it, we're trying to discredit the victim. The racism and social political climate is evident that we can't talk about this case where a cop shot a young man. The issues of power and race are linked together because of a history. This doesn't come out of nowhere.
I agree with is that people are far too liberal in how they use it. When people hurled it at Richard Sherman earlier in the year I thought he had a legitimate gripe when he complained about it. Michael Brown doesn't tend to invoke my sympathy given the corroboration that he went for the officers service weapon and robbed a store ten minutes before that.
There was plenty of focus on Wilson. While the investigation was still within it's infancy Wilson was branded a racist based on nothing more than the race of the parties involved. It was presumed race motivated his actions without evidence.
Even know what specific evidence is being cited to justify this conclusion? His history with the department was known withing two to three weeks. I'd seen attempts to use the prior actions of his family as proof when dirt couldn't be directly found on him.
It's not as if people didn't dig for because they absolutely did. The primary reason his dirt was being spewed everywhere is because they couldn't find any. His history as an officer was absolutely looked into (as it should have been).
The burden of proof does lie on the accusarer, not the defence, so I understand they need to establish whether or not the guilt is there. However, when there is a murder case regardless of the occupation of the accused, I would assume that the evidence would not be based on the perceived character of the victim, but by the events that transpired. The fact that this was six shots, that it was reported that the victim had his hands up--that's everything for the court to decide. What is not for us to decide was whether he 'deserved' it or not, because he didn't. We don't give power to our cops to arbitrarily decide who deserves to die or not. That should not be ever, at all in our dialogue of this discussion. It is whether or not the officer in question is guilty.
The accuser is not immune to credibility attacks nor should they be. Accusers can be prone to lie as much as anyone else. Their status as victims does not make them immune from being wrong, mistaken, or outright lying. I fail to see why they are deserving of special protection that is not afforded to other witnesses whether they be experts, cops, or lay witnesses. There are limits on what and when certain types of character evidence can be used and not all credibility attacks are even usable in court.
However, he has been held up as the gentle giant who wouldn't harm a flea and so I have little sympathy when evidence comes out suggesting that image is not accurate. If you are going to paint that narrative and run with it's crap to sit and cry about when it receives scrutiny, especially when what comes out damages it.
One of my biggest grips about much of the commentary on this board in regards to Treyvon Martin is the complete inability of people too look at the law beyond that case. Michael Brown isn't the only person who has ever been a victim nor is murder the only charge to ever exist.
I haven't seen many (well any actually) people say he deserved it. I suspect there are people on social media who have (so don't waste my time finding them, I'll concede that they exist) on their isn't hard. That said, there are also witness statements, from other blacks no less, corroborating his account including that Wilson was still inside his vehicle when Brown first went after him. If you attempt to take an officers sidearm from them their assumption is that you plan to shoot them with it.
The people of Ferguson are angry at what they perceive to be a miscarriage of justice. The community is angry, and the more I see discussions like this that vilify Micheal Brown, the more I believe that they have every right to be--because as a white woman I don't know what it is like to live in a climate where you feel at odds with the police; the people that I feel are here to protect me. When I see a police officer, I feel safe. I can also believe that these grievances are legitimate, because I've seen something of this vein before.
I do not agree with them, but I do not fault them for being angry. I don't, however, find sympathy with the defenses being offered for the rioting, especially the damaging and looting of people who had nothing to do with anything of this.
If people want me to condemn the rioters in the other cases shown by unburnt I am happy to do so. I see no one praises those people, however.
Women face issues like this when it comes to rape. The sexual history, from what she was wearing, doing at the time, and all centred around how she may have given any indication that she was on board with what happened to her. If this can happen to women; if there can be a climate where I feel unsafe walking at night or being told by my parents when and where to go--the dangers of leaving a drink unattended, I can certainly imagine that maybe the people of Ferguson, that black men and women have similar dialogues in regards to their relationship with the police. Because of this, I believe that it is imperative that we are critical and open to understanding what is going on in this community. That's on the side of protests and social justice dialogue.
We've conversed enough that I believe your statement genuine. But I cannot overstate how much of a cynic I am about such pleas. Many people who say that don't want a dialogue. They just want to yell and lecture.
I'm doing selective reading despite having lived in the country 24 years of my life and listening, reading and watching the news since this entire thing broke out? I'm being selective even after taking class after class in college about African american history, Sociology and all that?
Maybe the prosecutor SAW the evidence and realized that the indictment was a terrible, crazy idea.
I don't believe the prosecutor took a position at all. There is not indication anywhere that he did anything other than present the evidence to the Grand Jury and then simply let them decide. A prosecutor can take a position during that process (and usually do). Most of the time cases that are presented are ones they prosecutor is confident they can win (they get declined and never see the grand jury otherwise). High profile case are different and regardless of what the prosecuting thinks are presented anyway.
There are two reasons why someone would take this approach. The first is obvious. Ass-covering as it places the responsibility onto the grand jury to make the decision. The other is when you present a case where you present every bit of evidence you have (as was done here) it's a way to test its quality. If you can't a true bill then odds are pretty good you are completely f**cked at trial.
Legally you can present a case to a GJ as many times as you want (it's not double jeopardy), but if you struggle getting a true bill where the decision is only PC and does not need to be unanimous you can imagine your odds in front a petit jury are going to be poor.
You really think 3 black people and 9 white people is a fair jury? In a case fueled by anti-black racism? In a town that is by far mostly comprised of black people? Really?
Case was prosecuted by the County. The jurors are selected from the county's population and not the city's. If they do what most counties do it's based on a list of DL's that are selected at random (they use what they call a wheel where I live) and they are the first twelve on the list that actually responded.
What would you call a fair jury?
If the case happened a place that was sheet white and the GJ reflected that would you call it fair? I'm a bit skeptical that you would.
The protesters as a whole reject the looters and protect businesses. There are pictures flying everywhere that prove just that. And I read somewhere that there are pro-Darren Wilson people pretending to be protesters to make the pro-Ferguson people look bad. Can't find the source on that, so I can't say it as fact, but I wouldn't be surprised lmfao
Yes, most of them are and many are frustrated that their protest has been hijacked by outsiders who don't care one bit about Brown, but I see no evidence of your claim and you present none. It smells like your personal prejudice on display. If I tried this kitten I'd be hung by my nuts after being told I had no proof. If you're going to hurl that kind of accusation then provide the source.
LOOK at that CUT on his CHIN! ...Ok, he might have actually gotten that cut from shaving, but still, poor guy! smh, why does no one ever think of the cops' side of the story!
/sarcasm
Injuries of assault (a) do not always result in lacerations, (2) bleed, and (3) are not immediately visible right after the assault (bruising especially).
People run into problems like that prosecuting domestic violence assaults. My juries want to see blood and guts in those cases, but it most assault it isn't there. Doesn't mean it wasn't a vicious assault or didn't happen.
Two this misses the part about Brown going for his weapon while Wilson was pinned in the car. I've said it before, if you try and take their weapon in the middle of a scuffle they are going to think your intent it to shoot them with it.
I have to wonder how much you actually understand the American justice system. The whole point of selecting a jury is to find an unbiased group of peers to JUDGE him. If that means they have to fly the court to the most remote place in the US they DO IT. Of course they can’t have a jury full of black people, or people from Ferguson, it wouldn’t be a FAIR trial.
I didn't say to beat him in the street that would be what RIOTERS have already done to their own white supporters.
He wasn't killed because of the color of his skin but because he tried to take an officers weapon and then charged him. Because you know, AUTOPSY REPORTS, FORENSICS, BLAHBLAHBLAH, stuff you don't give a damn about.
Grand Juries are not selected the same way petit juries are. On a petit jury it's a group of people (or in some cases one-on-one intervies) who are questioned by the attorneys. That process is not used for Grand Jury. I cannot say they didn't use a special selection procedure here, but generally for GJ it;s the first 12 who come up on the list, are eligible to serve, and can be found. So, it's make up will be a total crap shoot most of the time.
Grand jury isn't a fair trail to begin with. Regardless, if you want to get upset about something then why choose this case in particular that's far more controversial due to the evidence and trail indicating his innocence instead of getting upset about at the countless other flagrant examples of police brutality and excessive force? The goal of the U.S. court system is to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of a crime they didn't do. If there is enough evidence for 12 people to agree that there was probable cause for use of deadly force then we should accept it. Back to what I was saying before, why choose this case instead of a more clear cut one?
The prosecutor enjoys enormous amount control over the process which is why there is the old joke about them indicting a ham sandwich.
That said, the procedure used for this Grand Jury was not is what is done in most cases for the reasons noted earlier.
I'd bet money most prosecutors would have done the same thing in a case like this.
That Jury had 3 black people, 3 black people that for all we know found Wilson innocent, while WHITE people on the jury could have gone the other way. We don't know which of them decided what, so calling the decision wrong because there were only three of them seems ignorant.
You make the same error KonaKona does. We have no idea who voted which way and unless they publically (something they are actually not supposed to do) tell us you will never known. GJ votes are secret.
I was upset at that case too. I'm capable of caring about more than one thing at a time, what's your point?
We don't know that 12 people agreed. We know that a majority of those 12 people agreed. The majority of those 12 people were white. See what I'm getting at?
Yes, you appear to be assuming it went 9-3 based on racial break down. It's certainly possible, but I'm personally not ready to presume their voting pattern based solely on their race. I like to see more than just supposition before I hurl charges like that.
All that is known is that they did not get nine votes and unless someone leaks that is all that will be known.
Edited by Nate River, 26 November 2014 - 01:33 AM.
Edit a line because I realized it implied something I never meant to say
