JustAFan
The Adebayo Akinfenwa of football photoshoppers
I had posted a picture of the actual gun a few pages backYeah fair enough, "airsoft" sounded toylike to me.
I had posted a picture of the actual gun a few pages backYeah fair enough, "airsoft" sounded toylike to me.
How does that differ from what I said?Nonsense. The only job of the grand jury is to determine if there is sufficient cause to warrant a trial based on a charge they are given to consider. They do not have the option of considering alternate charges unless the prosecutor's office provides different charges for them to consider. The grand jury is given specific charges to consider and those charges cite statutes in question.
It may work differently elsewhere but I spent 2 months last year as foreman of a grand jury. I hated every second of it, gutted me to see how some folk treat each other. The kids, the elderly.......I told the county prosecutor on completion of my term that I was done with jury duty, period.
There is a bad relationship between blacks and police here, no doubt. I would not be surprised if they came back with a lesser charge or allowed civil proceedings to determine the outcome as has been done many times.
That said, what the feck does looting do for the black community of Ferguson besides make them look bad?
Online or on TV? Would be good to get a link to that at some point.Just watched an excerpt of Darren Wilson's interview with Stephanopoulos. As unsavoury as it sounds, he was completely justified in doing what he did. You just don't try to grab a cop's gun and expect to not be shot.
Legally okay, but as a society we need to evaluate the deference we give to cops, a non-insignificant number of whom are sociopaths.Just watched an excerpt of Darren Wilson's interview with Stephanopoulos. As unsavoury as it sounds, he was completely justified in doing what he did. You just don't try to grab a cop's gun and expect to not be shot.
We need to separate the specifics of individual cases from the broader social and racial subjects that need to be dealt with in communities and legal circles. This pitchfork mentality of attempting to convict Wilson to make up for a systemic problem is wrong and needs to be called out.Legally okay, but as a society we need to evaluate the deference we give to cops, a non-insignificant number of whom are sociopaths.
There's no guarantee that that happened though and in any case, eyewitnesses say that he was killed having ran away, turned around and raised his hands to surrender. If what I've read is correct, only Wilson's own account states that Brown went for the gun, or assaulted him at all. It's dodgy as owt and I don't really get why the only guy who has something to gain from lying gets the benefit of the doubt when the testimony of independent witnesses has been largely ignored.Just watched an excerpt of Darren Wilson's interview with Stephanopoulos. As unsavoury as it sounds, he was completely justified in doing what he did. You just don't try to grab a cop's gun and expect to not be shot.
Brown's blood was found inside Wilson's car which supports Wilson's account. If the physical evidence support Wilson, there's no way they are going to prosecute him.There's no guarantee that that happened though. Eyewitnesses say that he was killed whilst raising his hands to surrender. If what I've read is correct, only Wilson's own account states that Brown went for the gun. It's dodgy as owt and I don't really get why he gets the benefit of the doubt when the testimony of independent witnesses has been largely ignored.
The interview you've posted sort of exemplifies for me how unbalanced the reception to the incident has been, the level of deference Wilson is being shown by the interviewer is unreal.
You said "The galling part about this case for most people is that the grand jury declined to indite Wilson on any charge". They can only consider charges the prosecutor asks them to consider, on a count by count basis.How does that differ from what I said?
As for looting, it's sad and unacceptable, but that's what happens when you feck people over for so long. Let's not act like the looting is the most significant problem here.
The physical evidence says that at least one shot was fired from within the car and that Brown's blood was in the car. That doesn't corroborate Wilson's account, it only corroborates that Brown was close enough to the car door at the time of the first shot that his blood could end up in the car. The physical evidence alone can't corroborate of rule out any of the 3 main options, i.e.Brown's blood was found inside Wilson's car which supports Wilson's account. If the physical evidence support Wilson, there's no way they are going to prosecute him.
C) is next to impossible since Brown's blood was inside Wilson's vehicle. When you combine that with Wilson's marks, the blood inside the vehicle, it supports Wilson's story of a struggle for his weapon, which even if the second bit after when Brown was running away is false in Wilson's account, still gives Wilson as cop, legal justification to shoot Brown.The physical evidence says that at least one shot was fired from within the car and that Brown's blood was in the car. That doesn't corroborate Wilson's account, it only corroborates that Brown was close enough to the car door at the time of the first shot that his blood could end up in the car. The physical evidence alone can't corroborate of rule out any of the 3 main options, i.e.
a) Wilson's entire story is true - he is assaulted by Brown, he fires in self-defence, Brown flees before turning round and charging at him again, at which point Wilson shoots at Brown again, killing him with a shot to the head as Brown stoops to tackle him.
b) The initial bit of Wilson's story is true but the rest is false - he is assaulted by Brown by the car and fires a shot, Brown then flees, turns and raises his hands to surrender as stated by witnesses and is shot multiple times and killed.
c) None of Wilson's story is true - Brown is at the car door but not aggressive at the time the shot is fired. He runs away for a while before turning and raising his hands to surrender, at which point he is shot multiple times and killed.
All are possible on the basis on the physical evidence, but only a) can lead you to the conclusion that the killing was lawful. a), incidentally, is the only account which is entirely contradicted by eyewitness accounts.
Wait, aren't you the uppity Candian who proclaimed Canada has none of the awful problems of the USA? Know your place.He said, with typical American bravado. Get off your high horse
It's not 'next to impossible', it's just that we don't have an alternative explanation as the person who'd give it isn't alive to do so. There's all sorts of possibilities. I mean, the suggestion that the gun went off during a struggle over said gun isn't borne out by the forensic evidence (or refuted by it) so you could argue for a fourth scenario -C) is next to impossible since Brown's blood was inside Wilson's vehicle. When you combine that with Wilson's marks, the blood inside the vehicle, it supports Wilson's story of a struggle for his weapons, which even if the second bit after when Brown was running away is false in Wilson's account, still gives Wilson as cop, legal justification to shoot Brown.
Tennessee vs Garner is the usual case cited.It's not 'next to impossible', it's just that we don't have an alternative explanation as the person who'd give it isn't alive to do so. I mean, the suggestion that the gun went off during a struggle over said gun isn't borne out by the forensic evidence (or refuted by it). Other possibilities which would still fit all the physical evidence would be
d)/e) An altercation occurs for whatever reason in which the gun is not involved, Wilson then pulls the gun and uses it, [the rest follows Wilson's version/it follows the eyewitness accounts].
Whichever way you paint it, there's absolutely no way you can point to the physical evidence as proof that Wilson's story is undeniably true. The evidence matches a full range of explanations. If anything, the fact that aspects of Wilson's story directly clash with those of independent witnesses surely means we shouldn't automatically assume that just because his story is feasible it's also true.
Out of interest, can you find any document which backs up your last sentence - that Wilson is legally justified in shooting a surrendering man on the basis that he had constituted a danger in the past? I find that pretty incredible (although I fully accept that might be due to the law itself being ridiculous rather than any mistake on your party), surely such a law would make the police basically unaccountable?
That ruling doesn't seem to apply here unless you uncritically take Wilson's account at face value, which doesn't seem wise for reasons I've already stated. Regardless of whether he tried to take Wilson's gun in the car, if, as eyewitnesses have stated, he didn't pose a threat to Wilson at the time of the killing shot, Tennessee vs Garner doesn't apply.Tennessee vs Garner is the usual case cited.
He's legally justified to use lethal force if Brown strikes him and/or tries to grab his gun; as at that point, he has the judicial discretion to make a decision as to whether Brown is a felon and/or poses a violent risk to the community. Both of which happened, at least according to Wilson and the physical evidence. And that's not withstanding Wilson's claim that he feared for his life. The only people who had access to all the evidence seem to be in agreement over the relevance of the physical evidence in support of Wilson's story. People who are race hustling the matter seem to not be particularly interested in the legal nuances.
Tiffany Mitchell, Piaget Crenshaw, Michael Brady, Emmanuel Freeman and 2 unnamed construction workers all call some aspect of Wilson's testimony into doubt. If you include Brian Johnson (who was with Brown at the time and so I didn't count as 'independent'), every single witness who have come forward disputes Wilson's account.I guess that settled that.
Mr Goldblum, the witness you mention and call independent........where are they?
I don't remember saying Canada has no problems that America does. We are not in a great state really atm and bad things obviously happen here. Ferguson is one situation where maybe the police officer had cause to shoot the victim, but did he need to load a clip into his midsection? Probably not. The problem in America is that it happens incredibly often.Wait, aren't you the uppity Candian who proclaimed Canada has none of the awful problems of the USA? Know your place.
Anyway, let's see if I can summarize.
Large, aggressive (drunk? high?) criminal assaults arresting police officer on his way home from a strongarm robbery and ends up dead. This is the fault of:
a) Guns
b) The Police
c) America
d) Race
e) "the System"
f) History
Everybody except for the foolish criminal who gave a cop good reason to shoot him.
That does not mean you ignore this particular case.I think people are getting a bit swept away with the specifics of the case and not seeing it for what it is - a socio-cultural flashpoint about a deep mistrust between black communities and primarily white police forces and the perceived racial disparities within the criminal justice system. The specifics of this case are just an inflection point of a broader set of issues of how Americans as a society need to rethink their socio-economic disparities.
Completely agree with this.I think people are getting a bit swept away with the specifics of the case and not seeing it for what it is - a socio-cultural flashpoint about a deep mistrust between black communities and primarily white police forces and the perceived racial disparities within the criminal justice system. The specifics of this case are just an inflection point of a broader set of issues of how Americans as a society need to rethink their socio-economic disparities.
True. Nor does it mean the rule of law shouldn't be respected as decided by the grand jury. The legal process should be allowed to unfold without any outside coercion resulting from pressure to prosecute Wilson to alleviate the faults of a broken system.That does not mean you ignore this particular case.
Problem here was the role of the prosecutor. The more you read about it, the more it is clear that he never wanted to bring charges against Wilson and pretty much conducted the whole Grand jury stuff for that end goal. His inclination to believe certain witnesses over others have little logic.True. Nor does it mean the rule of law shouldn't be respected as decided by the grand jury. The legal process should be allowed to unfold without any outside coercion resulting from pressure to prosecute Wilson to alleviate the faults of a broken system.
I agree that he weaseled his way out of making a decision about the case himself by giving it to a grand jury to decide, which was probably done so he could avoid the perception of being biased given his previous record.Problem here was the role of the prosecutor. The more you read about it, the more it is clear that he never wanted to bring charges against Wilson and pretty much conducted the whole Grand jury stuff for that end goal. His inclination to believe certain witnesses over others have little logic.
Thanks to institutional racism in the South (Jim Crow Laws) which came out of slavery, you know, the practice where African Americans were traded like cattle, Michael Brown grew up in a hood ready to be violent rather than in a suburb going to class. Did Michael Brown deserve to pay for what he did? Maybe, although this won't be shown in a court of law. Is he the only one to blame? No. This country has long blamed only the minority criminals but it hasn't led to any change. If these populations had opportunities to improve their lot (which they don't btw) then you won't see this magnitude of crisis. Am I blaming anyone currently alive for this socio-economic situation? No but I do think we could all do more to educate these youngsters. I am not saying to give them free handouts either which will only exacerbate the problem.Wait, aren't you the uppity Candian who proclaimed Canada has none of the awful problems of the USA? Know your place.
Anyway, let's see if I can summarize.
Large, aggressive (drunk? high?) criminal assaults arresting police officer on his way home from a strongarm robbery and ends up dead. This is the fault of:
a) Guns
b) The Police
c) America
d) Race
e) "the System"
f) History
Everybody except for the foolish criminal who gave a cop good reason to shoot him.
That's not what I mean. Listening to other prosecutors on news today, prosecutor has the responsibility play both sides and now give one preference over the others. Don't think that was the case here.I agree that he weaseled his way out of making a decision about the case himself by giving it to a grand jury to decide, which was probably done so he could avoid the perception of being biased given his previous record.
They are saying that, but at the end of the day the physical evidence at the crime scene has to match the eyewitness testimony and apparently the grand jury decided the only person whose testimony was consistent with the evidence was Wilson's.That's not what I mean. Listening to other prosecutors on news today, prosecutor has the responsibility play both sides and now give one preference over the others. Don't think that was the case here.
The physical evidence collected by the Police themselves with no photographic evidence due to farcical reasons. Several legal experts have also contended that you can just ignore several eye witnesses based on any kind of evidence let alone the one in this case. So many witnesses generally always result in a trial of some kind.They are saying that, but at the end of the day the physical evidence at the crime scene has to match the eyewitness testimony and apparently the grand jury decided the only person whose testimony was consistent with the evidence was Wilson's.
I think its fair to say a good number of legal experts are allowing the opinions to be colored by the racial subtext of this case. I've seen quite a few of them who seem fixated on making sure Wilson is prosecuted at any price to avoid the consequences of what may happen (and indeed has) if the grand jury decided there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute.The physical evidence collected by the Police themselves with no photographic evidence due to farcical reasons. Several legal experts have also contended that you can just ignore several eye witnesses based on any kind of evidence let alone the one in this case. So many witnesses generally always result in a trial of some kind.
Justice can't be one-sided. It should apply to everyone. Him being a cop doesn't mean he shouldn't exercise his right to protect himself from someone he felt threatened by.I think its fair to say a good number of legal experts are allowing the opinions to be colored by the racial subtext of this case. I've seen quite a few of them who seem fixated on making sure Wilson is prosecuted at any price to avoid the consequences of what may happen (and indeed has) if the grand jury decided there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute.
That is what some people want this to be about. It's unfair to project any of that onto the police officer who was found to be doing his job and acting in self-defense. It's really about a damn fool who got himself shot.I think people are getting a bit swept away with the specifics of the case and not seeing it for what it is - a socio-cultural flashpoint about a deep mistrust between black communities and primarily white police forces and the perceived racial disparities within the criminal justice system. The specifics of this case are just an inflection point of a broader set of issues of how Americans as a society need to rethink their socio-economic disparities.
There have been significant protests all over the US, and only in Ferguson has there been significant property damage. For the sake of argument, let's assume all the protesters in Ferguson have resorted to violence. That is only a small percentage of the protests that have happened all over the country. Any one who forms perceptions based on the looters is being simple minded at best.As for fecking people over....the looting is quite significant in that it perpetuates a stereotype to those that look for any excuse to denigrate blacks. While there are many reports of citizens trying to calm things down, urging looters to stop and to pursue peaceful protest it won't change the perception of some people. The ignorant and the stupid will loot and racists will hate, it just is.
feck you jack, I'm alrightI am unsure what you mean by fecking over people but I haven't fecked over anyone. All in all I have had a lot of things in my life that maybe the people in Ferguson didn't have but I don't feel guilty about it. I just want to be left alone.
And?I know that the black community feels they have a legitimate, long term complaint about their treatment in many areas of the US. In some cases I am certain they have every right to be angry, but every society has a group that feels fecked over. Yes, the US has long way to go in race relations and in gender equity, I cannot with a clear conscience deny that, but I would say most counties have some sort of race problem they are dealing with.
What this guy said.Thanks to institutional racism in the South (Jim Crow Laws) which came out of slavery, you know, the practice where African Americans were traded like cattle, Michael Brown grew up in a hood ready to be violent rather than in a suburb going to class. Did Michael Brown deserve to pay for what he did? Maybe, although this won't be shown in a court of law. Is he the only one to blame? No. This country has long blamed only the minority criminals but it hasn't led to any change. If these populations had opportunities to improve their lot (which they don't btw) then you won't see this magnitude of crisis. Am I blaming anyone currently alive for this socio-economic situation? No but I do think we could all do more to educate these youngsters. I am not saying to give them free handouts either which will only exacerbate the problem.
If you commit a crime, you go to jail. If you attack a police officer, you can get shot. We can all agree on this. Unfortunately, there is no punishment for purposefully holding an entire population down just for pure profit.
As a minority individual in the US who comes from a well educated family with no criminal history I feel very insulted when such views are posted. Minorities in general are subject to inherent racism no matter how good they are as citizens. It is improving with each passing generation but to just brush aside the issues makes you as bad as your forefathers.