I had posted a picture of the actual gun a few pages back
Riots in Ferguson, St Louis
- Thread starter PhilipB
- Start date
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.
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.
Online or on TV? Would be good to get a link to that at some point.
That is the key thing for me. Going for the gun gives the officer very little choice. If he hadn't have done that I might have had more sympathy.
Legally okay, but as a society we need to evaluate the deference we give to cops, a non-insignificant number of whom are sociopaths.
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.
Thanks @Raoul
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have yet to see a report of what charges jurors were asked to consider but that certainly would be public record, wouldn't it? At any rate, jurors heard over 70 hours of testimony.
In fairness, for those that do not know this, in grand jury proceedings there is only prosecution evidence presented, the defense has no voice and offers no evidence to counter the prosecution. I think in the long run the case had gone to some sort of jury trial it would not have resulted in a conviction, but perhaps having complete and open discussion of all facets of the encounter in open court would have appeared as a more forthright approach.
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.
I 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.
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.
Rodney King said it best, why can't we all just get along?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
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.
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 -
d) 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 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 in terms of matching the physical evidence that 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?
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 decide whether Brown is a felon and/or poses a violent risk to the community. Both of which happened, at least according to the grand jury's interpretation of how Wilson's story matched up against 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.
I guess that settled that.
Mr Goldblum, the witness you mention and call independent........where are they?
Mr Goldblum, the witness you mention and call independent........where are they?
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.
Like I said, there's no 'according to the physical evidence' about it. The physical evidence is completely silent on whether Brown at any point tried to take Wilson's gun, any attempt to justify reading it as if the physical evidence unambiguously backs Wilson's account is highly dubious. Since the denial of a trial seems to be on those grounds it seems fair to call foul somewhat.
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 haven't been following to closely and largely just been skimming this thread for the different sides of the story, so won't go into that.
But what I don't get is how the people who started looting (majority of these would likely just be drop kicks using any chance to create trouble and score themselves free stuff) can then try and state they are are doing in protest. They are effectivily destroying their own town and reinforcing the image of black people being criminals and dangerous to those with racist views. Smashing things is hardly going to convince all those looking down on black people in america that they are upstanding citizens who should be viewed as equals. All it does is create a bigger divide between the two groups and potentially push the white people who previously didn't have racist views against them as well.
Not to mention the people calling for a greater voice in the areas that run the city and police force for black people, yet at the same time turning on those black officers who have done just that.
But what I don't get is how the people who started looting (majority of these would likely just be drop kicks using any chance to create trouble and score themselves free stuff) can then try and state they are are doing in protest. They are effectivily destroying their own town and reinforcing the image of black people being criminals and dangerous to those with racist views. Smashing things is hardly going to convince all those looking down on black people in america that they are upstanding citizens who should be viewed as equals. All it does is create a bigger divide between the two groups and potentially push the white people who previously didn't have racist views against them as well.
Not to mention the people calling for a greater voice in the areas that run the city and police force for black people, yet at the same time turning on those black officers who have done just that.
Scruffy bastards are getting naughty on the streets of Portland right now. They love a good protest out here.
Sounds like its kicking off in Times square as well.
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.
I am sorry but I just don't buy the officer's story that having shot him multiple times in his body, he absolutely had to shoot his head to stop him charging. I am not saying he should have shot him in the foot or anything but I don't believe for a second that as big as Brown was, a gun shot wounded one was a real danger to that officer's life.
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.
That does not mean you ignore this particular case.
Completely agree with this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/u...-of-evidence-much-of-it-conflicting.html?_r=0
This is a good article detailing some of the questionable role the prosecution team played in this trial.
This is a good article detailing some of the questionable role the prosecution team played in this trial.
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.
On another note Swat is currently moving in on Ferguson.
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.
More than anything, the incident reflects a lack of proper respect for authority. We have video footage of this young man rampaging a store, terrorizing his own community, and then attacking a police officer. This man has no respect for civil behavior, his fellow citizens, or rule of law. How anyone can shed a tear or light a candle for this criminal who signed his own death warrant is beyond me. Had he surrendered peacefully he would still be alive (in jail) today.
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.
feck you jack, I'm alright
And?
Rodney King said it best, why can't we all just get along?[/QUOTE]
Why can't minorities be treated equally in society?
Its a tragedy all round. The kid is dead, parents shattered, communities erupting. Very sad.
What this guy said.