Jump to content

Close
Photo

Ferguson

ferguson

  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#41 Tsuki Hoshino

Tsuki Hoshino

    The One True Demi-Goddess of Misfortune

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:U.S,Delmarva-ish
  • Interests:Stuff, things, people.

    https://twitter.com/Huldra_Nix

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:16 PM

 

First off, I don't give two kittens about what Kim Jong Un has to say about Ferguson. He is not any better.

 

Now that that's out of the way....

 

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

 

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?

 

What these people want is to not be killed because of the color of their skin???? Like wtf are you serious right now???? That and for indictment of Darren Wilson. Who said anything about beating him in the streets? A fair trial and jailtime is fine, thank you.

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.


 

 

 

 

 

YEARS AND YEARS of suffering of brutality. And you are trying to tell me that "violence" by their side...covers EVERYTHING? I just fail to understand how someone can't be angry at this. Do you want peace? GIVE THEM PEACE FIRST. GIVE THEM THE FEELING THAT THEY ARE SAFE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Black kids have "the talk" with their parents about how they are seen in the society

YES, Wilson clearly started things when Brown tried to take his gun in that car :zaru: 

I’m not upset because I waited for the JURY to decide if he were innocent or guilty, I did not listen to protesters who would ignore facts for feelings. 

I wasn't there, you were not there, 99.9% of those people were not there. What we have is EVIDENCE and witnesses, witnesses who allowed Wilson to get off, and once again a JURY that let him walk away. 

Most of them are not rioting and looting? Alright, well for MOST of them not doing so there sure is a lot of damage going on down there.

Are they justified to be upset? Absolutely, but again I ask, What about the much higher rate of black on black crime? Where are the riots? Where are the civil rights speakers? Nowhere, because politicians and electorates like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson can’t make a profit off of that.  You know, as someone who took African American history, I very well understand the brutality that they HAVE faced and that they do at times still face and I very well understand the turmoil they inflict within themselves.

Blacks are not being slaughtered every day in the street by cops, simply because they are black, EVERYDAY without consequence, does it happen? sure, do white people also get shot for being white and being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Yes. 

People are people and they do nasty terrible things to one another no mater what ethnicity they are.

Daren Wilson WENT to court, his case, and Brown's were presented and the decision is made. Rioting over it does not change facts. It just doesn't. 

 


Edited by Tsuki Hoshino, 25 November 2014 - 11:18 PM.

 giphy.gif?cid=790b7611991db478fd57f4321b
                                         Pls shame me for procrastinating.  :argh: 


#42 Branden

Branden

    The man who's going to save the world.

  • Jounin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:17 PM

 

First off, I don't give two kittens about what Kim Jong Un has to say about Ferguson. He is not any better.

 

Now that that's out of the way....

 

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

 

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?

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?

 

Eric Garner's murder is a perfect example of something you SHOULD be upset about:


Romance_Dawn_Arc.png

"This hat means a lot to me. Promise me you'll give it back someday...

when you've become a great pirate." -Shanks


#43 Tsuki Hoshino

Tsuki Hoshino

    The One True Demi-Goddess of Misfortune

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:U.S,Delmarva-ish
  • Interests:Stuff, things, people.

    https://twitter.com/Huldra_Nix

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:24 PM

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?

 

Eric Garner's murder is a perfect example of something you SHOULD be upset about:


This case, I agree with. This was AWFUL. 


 giphy.gif?cid=790b7611991db478fd57f4321b
                                         Pls shame me for procrastinating.  :argh: 


#44 Lid

Lid

    Notorious

  • Jounin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bemidji, Minnesota
  • Interests:Movies, sports and anime/manga.

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:27 PM

The whole situation in Ferguson in my view has been a tragic situation from beginning to end. 

 

A young man is dead. Did he make some poor choices? I think the case can be made that he might have. But if things had gone differently and he had been arrested maybe it could have been a wake-up call for him and he could have bettered himself.

 

Following his death, I think the response from the police made things more tragic. I think that people felt that the law enforcement wasn't prioritizing the situation enough right away and were being too aggressive with protesters which led to the violence and destruction of property.

 

Then there is last night. Yes the grand jury made a no indictment decision based on investigations, however, I can understand a population of people who feel like their voices haven't been heard and they don't get respect from their society. At the same time, it was completely wrong for a portion of protesters to begin riots which we saw last night.

 

I think what we have to look at now is what happens next, though. Michael Brown is dead, and nothing will bring him back. And it's doubtful that anything will happen with Officer Wilson now.

 

So the the next step has to be for both that Ferguson community and communities across the nation to come together more and build each other up.

 

 

Have police officers visit schools more and have them meet with the youth, have more events with law enforcement for charity for example and have them be more familiar.

 

Encourage youth centers and programs, whether they're academic or athletic, and draw away young people who may be headed down a dangerous path. 

 

And in situations of tragedy, hopefully the rioters will lead more people to say 'we will stand for voicing our disagreement with things in the system, but we won't stand for hurting others.'

 

I know a lot of these things seem far off and maybe I'm dreaming a little too much. But the only way a society can move forward in my view is learn from the mistakes of the past and try to build a better future. I think that's why the constitution has the words "We the people in order to form a more perfect union."


(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻


#45 Tsuki Hoshino

Tsuki Hoshino

    The One True Demi-Goddess of Misfortune

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:U.S,Delmarva-ish
  • Interests:Stuff, things, people.

    https://twitter.com/Huldra_Nix

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:30 PM

 

I know a lot of these things seem far off and maybe I'm dreaming a little too much. But the only way a society can move forward in my view is learn from the mistakes of the past and try to build a better future. I think that's why the constitution has the words "We the people in order to form a more perfect union."

The real kicker is that polls show the country is more racially divided NOW then it was BEFORE Obama :zaru: Ironic, no? 


Edited by Tsuki Hoshino, 25 November 2014 - 11:31 PM.

 giphy.gif?cid=790b7611991db478fd57f4321b
                                         Pls shame me for procrastinating.  :argh: 


#46 KonaKonaFan

KonaKonaFan

    ve/ver

  • Special Jounin
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Interests:you

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:34 PM

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?

 

Eric Garner's murder is a perfect example of something you SHOULD be upset about:

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

I understand the justice system just fine. I'm saying they failed at that front. You really don't think black people shouldn't have been more prevalent in the jury that decided the fate of an officer in a predominantly black town?

 

If you're gonna criticize hearsay, I must ask you to practice what you preach.

 

Ughhh, even if the MULTIPLE WITNESSES testimonies isn't true (something I could similarly accuse you of not giving a damn about), officers are trained to handle violent people without killing them. People always try to build up Mike Brown as some big threat because he was 6'4.... leaving out the fact that Darren Wilson is also 6'4. Darren Wilson could have handled him without killing him. 


Edited by KonaKonaFan, 25 November 2014 - 11:35 PM.

                                                  eileenbeautifulswan_zps46b60759.gif


#47 Tsuki Hoshino

Tsuki Hoshino

    The One True Demi-Goddess of Misfortune

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:U.S,Delmarva-ish
  • Interests:Stuff, things, people.

    https://twitter.com/Huldra_Nix

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:40 PM

Many of  Brown's "Multiple witnesses" Changed their stories, were unreliable or flat out found to be lying, So I don't know what you want me to tell you about me ignoring hearsay. 

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. 

Saying that having more black people on the panel would have changed the verdict seems I don't know...Racist to me. 
 


 giphy.gif?cid=790b7611991db478fd57f4321b
                                         Pls shame me for procrastinating.  :argh: 


#48 Mikey1181

Mikey1181

    Chakra Tree Climber

  • Chakra Tree Climber
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Naruto!!! Bleach, League of Legends, Xbox, Ps3, Photography,Foooooood, and Football :)

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:47 PM

 
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?
 
 
 
I understand the justice system just fine. I'm saying they failed at that front. You really don't think black people shouldn't have been more prevalent in the jury that decided the fate of an officer in a predominantly black town?
 
If you're gonna criticize hearsay, I must ask you to practice what you preach.
 
Ughhh, even if the MULTIPLE WITNESSES testimonies isn't true (something I could similarly accuse you of not giving a damn about), officers are trained to handle violent people without killing them. People always try to build up Mike Brown as some big threat because he was 6'4.... leaving out the fact that Darren Wilson is also 6'4. Darren Wilson could have handled him without killing him. 


I thought the whole jury has to come to a mutual agreement?

I was told i looked like a beaver..

 

iplhnjk.jpg?2


#49 Nate River

Nate River

    Heaven and Earth Deity

  • Kage
  • 5,982 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 November 2014 - 11:52 PM

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


#50 Tsuki Hoshino

Tsuki Hoshino

    The One True Demi-Goddess of Misfortune

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:U.S,Delmarva-ish
  • Interests:Stuff, things, people.

    https://twitter.com/Huldra_Nix

Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:07 AM

I thought the whole jury has to come to a mutual agreement?

Its 9 out of twelve required, but there is no way to know who voted what. 

 

 

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.

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.
 

You're right, we don't know who voted what, and it really doesn't matter in the long run as far as I'm concerned. 


And yes, the jury selection is more arduous in an actual trial. 

I have no idea how the prosecutor presented the case--I would LIKE to think he just laid down the facts and presented them as is, no BS at play.

 but I do know  is that the courts decision is a highly unusual one to have been made. Its not common that the prosecutor  CAN'T convince a grand jury that there is enough evidence to require an actual case. They almost ALWAYS indict. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

So it seems legit to me...but I'm not a lawyer, just a Social work student. 


 


Edited by Tsuki Hoshino, 26 November 2014 - 12:16 AM.

 giphy.gif?cid=790b7611991db478fd57f4321b
                                         Pls shame me for procrastinating.  :argh: 


#51 KonaKonaFan

KonaKonaFan

    ve/ver

  • Special Jounin
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Interests:you

Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:16 AM

ahhh.... goddammit, I typed out a long response to Nate's and Tsuki's posts, but ended up accidentally deleting my words and then unknowingly posting. I'll gather my thoughts again later.


Edited by KonaKonaFan, 26 November 2014 - 12:16 AM.

                                                  eileenbeautifulswan_zps46b60759.gif


#52 Jake

Jake

    Elite Teacher

  • Elite Teacher
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA, USA

Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:19 AM

Michael Brown was a thug, so he's not an innocent teenager however it obvious it should point the fact that the police is unprepared, having to shot more than 6 times to subdue someome is completely retarded.

It gives the vibe of James Bond 007 "i felt for my life" so instantly he award a license to kill anyone.

My critic is the whole coverage of this incident every time a white police officer kills a black man, no one cares when black people kill other black, or when a white police officer killed an innocent old man.

All they care is to make the bullsh** about racism, and look at ferguson, the people there looting local stores everytime this thing happens.

 

Well here in the U.S. you are allowed to use lethal force if you believe you are endanger of having great bodily harm done to you, and if you had someone about twice your size charging at you would you believe that he was intent on doing great bodily harm to you?

 

I do agree with you on everything else though.

 

The rioters are all shortsighted idiots. They probably have no interest in the case whatsoever and are simply looking for an opportunity to cause mayhem and loot. I wish the media would stop calling them protesters because at least the protesters want things to be better instead of destroying their own community.

 

I was watching the streams yesterday and people were shooting at the firefighters who were just trying to save someone's business. How on earth could you even justify something like that? The 2nd day of the LA riots was worse so the #1 thing I'm hoping for is for tonight to not be as bad.

 

These "Protesters" and the way they act, (to me) brings to mind the image of a three year old throwing a temper tantrum because he did not get his way, So I say if they are going to act like three years olds then we should treat them like three year olds, and any child psychologist will tell you NOT to give in to their temper tantrum.

 

I will probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but why does a black person dying only matter when it’s a white person killing them? What about the MUCH higher rate of Black on Black crime? Why doesn’t the media cover that? Or what about when a black cop shoots a white person? Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen because it does, and it has.

We only care when its white on black crime, because that’s what we’ve been conditioned to believe is the pinnacle of evil in this country.

The fact that rioters have already stated they do not care about the evidence and only want an guilty verdict even if all evidence says otherwise only sours my opinion on this. The fact that the rioters are punishing people who did nothing to them by taking their property or DESTROYING it, just shows they do not care about justice. 

The forensics PROVED that Wilson and Brown struggled in the car when Brown went for his gun and that it went off and grazed the kids hand. The autopsy showed that he was not gunned down with his arms up in surrender but charging forward. Witnesses corroborated this account, yet we are supposed to put the man to trial despite it? I'm sorry but no.

Being unarmed does not make you nonthreatening

3 black people and 9 whites decided to let Wilson walk, isn't that what justice is in this nation? to be decided by a jury of our peers and not by popular opinion? 
 

 

Plus many of the "Witnesses" either changed their story to match the forensic evidence or later admitted that they did not in fact witness the incident and were just repeating what others had said.

 

It seems that you don't understand anything. And even so you are doing selective reading.

Are you trying to tell us that...we are making a big deal about racism... in america? Is that? Okay. Goodbye.

 

Are you trying to say that U.S. hasn't changed in that last 50 years?

 

Ughhh, even if the MULTIPLE WITNESSES testimonies isn't true (something I could similarly accuse you of not giving a damn about), officers are trained to handle violent people without killing them. People always try to build up Mike Brown as some big threat because he was 6'4.... leaving out the fact that Darren Wilson is also 6'4. Darren Wilson could have handled him without killing him. 

 

Brown had about 100 to 150 pounds on Wilson though I mean look at those images of Wilson, he's a bean pole.

 

 

 

Honestly the one who is most responsible for Michael Brown's death is Michael Brown, the man (Yes he was 18 and therefor an adult not a kid) was obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as he walked right in front of a cop less than an hour after committing strong arm robbery (a felony) reportedly holding the cigars he had stolen in said robbery, then he went and attacked the cop (another felonly) and then taunting and charging the officer (and yes there is evidence that Brown did charge Wilson) even after the officer had already discharged his weapon at him. It's a tragedy that he died but he brought it upon himself.


HampESig_zpsfc7d2080.jpg


#53 Tsuki Hoshino

Tsuki Hoshino

    The One True Demi-Goddess of Misfortune

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:U.S,Delmarva-ish
  • Interests:Stuff, things, people.

    https://twitter.com/Huldra_Nix

Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:28 AM

 

Plus many of the "Witnesses" either changed their story to match the forensic evidence or later admitted that they did not in fact witness the incident and were just repeating what others had said.

 

 

Are you trying to say that U.S. hasn't changed in that last 50 years?

 

Again, I submit that the only thing we can really trust in this case is the Forensics, where the blood was, where the wounds were, where the gun powder was found, ect. All of that DOES support the idea that Brown tried to take the gun, the gun went off, he ran, Wilson got out of the car and called for him to halt and at that time Brown turned and tried to bull charge him.

THATS what I trust. Not his STORY of events, but what the autopsy and forensics have corroborated.

Once more I submit the Irony that the country is MORE racially divided now then it was before our current president :zaru:


Edited by Tsuki Hoshino, 26 November 2014 - 12:29 AM.

 giphy.gif?cid=790b7611991db478fd57f4321b
                                         Pls shame me for procrastinating.  :argh: 


#54 Iwantbuns

Iwantbuns

    Liana loves yellow o_o

  • Summoning Master
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,374 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:What does that even mean? My 'location' changes all the time...
  • Interests:NaruSaku, SasuNaru, SasuHina, Sakura, Naruto, Hinata, Sasuke, Gaara, Itachi, Kakashi, Madara (especially when he's badass xD), Hashirama's laugh <3, forums, debating about random s**t, bananas, lemons, the color yellow, the number 29, people cheating on other people, people killing themselves, the power of bonds and s**t, anime, manga, Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, One Piece, Bleach, Sailor Moon, Fairy Tail, Pokemon, Death Note, Yu-Gi-Oh, and much more, chibis, drawing, dogs, cats, frogs, angst, tragedy, fluff, music, punk rock, piano, dubstep, trance, Avril Lavigne, OneRepublic, Ed Sheeran, Paramore, monsters, zombies, vampires, demons, violence, sex, supernatural s**t, food, fat people, anorexic people, Dora the Explorer, and Barney the mother-effing dinosaur. :)

Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:42 AM

I think the whole situation is overhyped. A guy happened to shoot a guy 6 times for no reason. 

 

I see the serious problem in this, but I don't see why people are seeing this as a racism thing. We're all humans, and I think that's one race in itself. It doesn't matter if the guy who was shooting happened to be white, and that the guy he shot was black. That has nothing to do with the actual situation. The police officer was obviously at fault, whether or not he was white. There were other ways to handle the situation, but that obviously wasn't the way.

 

Really it's stupid. Racism was never there. It's all in people's heads. The color of your skin does not make you any less human.

 

And people who blame this on the U.S, just no. The United States is a country that's against racism. In the end it's the people themselves that choose to be racism or not, regardless of their own race. Racism is just dumb, but blaming it on everyone leading the government of the U.S. is just wrong. There are people who care just as much about the problem as other people do.

 

But really I'm more annoyed that people take these bad situations, and make them look more messed up, by saying that it's because of the difference of their races that this happened.


Edited by Iwantbuns, 26 November 2014 - 12:46 AM.

tumblr_inline_miqmooGYSM1qz4rgp.gif

 

Why do people NOT ship these two? I just don't get it.

Probably cause they hate Sakura. When she's probably the most developed female character in the whole show.

I respect Hinata, but Sakura deserves some too.


#55 Khaleesi

Khaleesi

    Mother of dragons

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,237 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Lima, PerĂº

Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:43 AM

Yes, it hasn't changed: 

tumblr_na9rs6Nrep1tqdmrxo1_1280.png

 

 

I will answer all of you later.


dumbo-pink-elephants-on-parade1.gif?w=50

queen-harley.tumblr.com


#56 Tsuki Hoshino

Tsuki Hoshino

    The One True Demi-Goddess of Misfortune

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:U.S,Delmarva-ish
  • Interests:Stuff, things, people.

    https://twitter.com/Huldra_Nix

Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:53 AM

I really don't get what that picture is supposed to show me, one is a group of soldiers standing between citizens and their RIGHTS and the other is a group of cops standing around to prevent violence and further destruction of property. Just because something looks similar doesn't mean that it is. 


 giphy.gif?cid=790b7611991db478fd57f4321b
                                         Pls shame me for procrastinating.  :argh: 


#57 Mikey1181

Mikey1181

    Chakra Tree Climber

  • Chakra Tree Climber
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Naruto!!! Bleach, League of Legends, Xbox, Ps3, Photography,Foooooood, and Football :)

Posted 26 November 2014 - 01:28 AM

I really don't get what that picture is supposed to show me, one is a group of soldiers standing between citizens and their RIGHTS and the other is a group of cops standing around to prevent violence and further destruction of property. Just because something looks similar doesn't mean that it is. 


Two completely different meanings in those pictures.

I was told i looked like a beaver..

 

iplhnjk.jpg?2


#58 Branden

Branden

    The man who's going to save the world.

  • Jounin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2014 - 01:41 AM

 

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?

So correct me if I'm wrong but here's what I'm understanding:

 

White people are inherently racist.

Melatonin levels in the skin are what determines whether or not someone can be considered a "peer".

Evidence and jury trail should be ignored in favor of race wars.

 

 

People are selected for a jury if they are believed to not have a strong bias to either side of the case. The fact of the matter is that there was 12 American citizens there to determine the guilt or innocence of another American citizen. It's also important to know that these people were selected before the killing took place.

More importantly the person being convicted of a crime is promised a jury of their peers. Not the person who is convicting. In other words officer Darren Wilson had a jury of HIS peers.  Do you understand that?


Romance_Dawn_Arc.png

"This hat means a lot to me. Promise me you'll give it back someday...

when you've become a great pirate." -Shanks


#59 Nate River

Nate River

    Heaven and Earth Deity

  • Kage
  • 5,982 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2014 - 01:46 AM

Its 9 out of twelve required, but there is no way to know who voted what. 

 

 

You're right, we don't know who voted what, and it really doesn't matter in the long run as far as I'm concerned. 


And yes, the jury selection is more arduous in an actual trial. 

I have no idea how the prosecutor presented the case--I would LIKE to think he just laid down the facts and presented them as is, no BS at play.

 but I do know  is that the courts decision is a highly unusual one to have been made. Its not common that the prosecutor  CAN'T convince a grand jury that there is enough evidence to require an actual case. They almost ALWAYS indict. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

So it seems legit to me...but I'm not a lawyer, just a Social work student. 


 

 

Yeah, they rarely do. I've presented cases before a grand jury before (although not for indictment, but for a procedure in juvenile law known as Determinate Sentencing). The prosecutor enjoys enormous control over the process. At the same time, Grand Juries (unlike petite) juries can subpoena witnesses (even if the State does not call them) and generally conduct their own investigations. However they rarely do that make use of those powers.

 

Prosecutors screen cases before filling. Most of the cases that are in danger of a no bill almost never even see the grand jury. Why would I submit it to one if I know I am going to lose? 

 

I would be cautious about using such things in comparing it to this case for this because as I said, presenting your entire case (including witness testimony) is unusual. I see it mostly in high profile cases.



#60 Tsuki Hoshino

Tsuki Hoshino

    The One True Demi-Goddess of Misfortune

  • Kyuubi
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:U.S,Delmarva-ish
  • Interests:Stuff, things, people.

    https://twitter.com/Huldra_Nix

Posted 26 November 2014 - 01:48 AM

So correct me if I'm wrong but here's what I'm understanding:

 

White people are inherently racist.

Melatonin levels in the skin are what determines whether or not someone can be considered a "peer".

Evidence and jury trail should be ignored in favor of race wars.

 

 

People are selected for a jury if they are believed to not have a strong bias to either side of the case. The fact of the matter is that there was 12 American citizens there to determine the guilt or innocence of another American citizen. It's also important to know that these people were selected before the killing took place.

More importantly the person being convicted of a crime is promised a jury of their peers. Not the person who is convicting. In other words officer Darren Wilson had a jury of HIS peers.  Do you understand that?

THIS.

Admittedly the jury selection is different for an indictment in comparison to an actual trial, but that STILL means a person has to assume that all nine of those people MUST have been white, and MUST have been racist...or are we going to tread the dangerous ground of accusing black people of being "Race traitors" and "uncle toms?" 

 


 giphy.gif?cid=790b7611991db478fd57f4321b
                                         Pls shame me for procrastinating.  :argh: 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users