Jump to content

Menu

Ferguson


Scrub Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 997
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's odd, I thought a grand jury proceeding was not public. How did you have access?

 

I'm assuming the prosecuting attorney was telling the truth as he listed out the evidences and witness testimonies that were presented to the Grand Jury.  Apparently you, or at least several here, are assuming he was NOT telling the truth.  Just made it all up, eh? 

 

I'm thankful for forensic science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming the prosecuting attorney was telling the truth as he listed out the evidences and witness testimonies that were presented to the Grand Jury.  Apparently you, or at least several here, are assuming he was NOT telling the truth.  Just made it all up, eh? 

 

I'm thankful for forensic science. 

 

Grand Jury proceedings are secret.

 

I don't think he did list everything you stated because that would have been illegal. The public isn't given access to witness testimonies, how would we know if they were consistent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there are other witnesses who dispute this and say he was running away and still others who say that he had his hands up when he was shot.

 

That's the problem.  Conflicting witnesses....needed a real trial.  

 

The prosecuting attorney covered this in his statement.  The evidence will be released to the public, and we will be able to sift through it ourselves, assuming we have the wherewithal.  

 

Really, I thought he did a pretty good job of explaining the process the grand jury went through.  Particularly the discussion about witnesses whose testimony conflicted with physical evidence, and witnesses who admitted they didn't really see certain parts of the incident and were just describing what they thought happened.

 

Also, this isn't the end of the story. Civil charges can be brought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Wilson confronted Brown for crossing the street AT ALL is evidence of racism. Do you understand that?

I thought the statement tonight said the officer confronted him because he fit the description of the person who had stolen the box of Cigarillos, including his clothing, and also because he was carrying a box of Cigarillos under his arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming the prosecuting attorney was telling the truth as he listed out the evidences and witness testimonies that were presented to the Grand Jury.  Apparently you, or at least several here, are assuming he was NOT telling the truth.  Just made it all up, eh? 

 

I'm thankful for forensic science.

Forensic Science doesn't tell us why Brown was confronted. It doesn't tell us whether Wilson believed a man running away was an imminent threat to his safety.

 

Have you ever known someone who was fatally shot and the killer walked away scot-free because the person claimed they feel threatened? Because I have. He was white. He had no criminal record (unlike his murderer). He was a military veteran and family man. He was murdered and the police couldn't do anything about it. I think those are CRAP laws that need to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grand Jury proceedings are secret.

 

I don't think he did list everything you stated because that would have been illegal. The public isn't given access to witness testimonies, how would we know if they were consistent?

 

Actually, he has already said he will make the testimonies and evidence public to the full extent possible.  I think some things will need to be redacted to protect identities of witnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the statement tonight said the officer confronted him because he fit the description of the person who had stolen the box of Cigarillos, including his clothing, and also because he was carrying a box of Cigarillos under his arm.

 

Correct.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Wilson confronted Brown for crossing the street AT ALL is evidence of racism. Do you understand that?

 

Umm, no.  There is absolutely NO evidence of racism just because a police officer -- ANY police officer, regardless of color -- confronted a citizen who was apparently acting belligerently.  You do know that drugs were found in his body, right?  And that he then physically attacked the officer while still INSIDE his police car? 

 

You don't think a white police officer has ever confronted a white belligerent citizen?  How about a white police officer confronting a little 12yo white girl who was just taking the trash out in back of a movie theater late one night while her parents were inside cleaning?  And said police officer pointed a gun at that little girl and yelled, "Stop or I'll shoot!"  You don't think that ever happens?  Clearly, that police officer was prejudiced against little girls.  That officer should've been hung!

 

(That little girl was me.  And yeah, my dad FELT like personally hanging that officer!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming the prosecuting attorney was telling the truth as he listed out the evidences and witness testimonies that were presented to the Grand Jury.  Apparently you, or at least several here, are assuming he was NOT telling the truth.  Just made it all up, eh? 

 

I'm thankful for forensic science. 

 

For me, anything the DA says is in doubt.  Why?  Conflict of interest...and he did not recuse himself.  His own father was a white policeman who was killed by a black man.  That is a gigantic conflict of interest.  They should have chosen another prosecutor.  

 

That history, whether he was completely unbiased or not, adds doubt to the whole procedure.  

 

There's a reason why people recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest....it's to avoid these doubts.  In such a high stakes case...with so much tension already....there was no reason for him to remain on the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to every word the prosecuting attorney had to say. 

 

And yet he wasn't the one to actually make the ruling; he was simply reporting it.  

 

This area has been up to its eyeballs in racism for DECADES, and he commented on that at the beginning of his statement.  He absolutely nailed it there.

Edited by Susan Wise Bauer
Continued de-escalation...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he is never allowed to smile ever again?

 

We know too much and not enough about this case. Our media is insane.

 

Well, I know if I was in trouble for murdering someone whether I had reason to or not, I wouldn't be smiling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet he wasn't the one to actually make the ruling; he was simply reporting it.  

 

This area has been up to its eyeballs in racism for DECADES, and he commented on that at the beginning of his statement.  He absolutely nailed it there.

 

He had no business being involved in this case in any way. Period. I'm from this area, so I am very, very familiar with the history. I don't care that he commented about it. He should have recused himself, and the fact that he didn't tells me all I need to know about him.

Edited by Susan Wise Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet he wasn't the one to actually make the ruling; he was simply reporting it.  

 

This area has been up to its eyeballs in racism for DECADES, and he commented on that at the beginning of his statement.  I assume you also think he's full of shit about that?  Because he absolutely nailed it there.

 

Actually the saying is "a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict ham sandwich"

 

It is his show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?  As far as I can tell, he didn't prosecute anybody.  It went before a Grand Jury and it was decided there's nothing to prosecute. 

 

The prosecutor presents the case to the Grand Jury. It's his story...he can frame it however he wants.  if he doesn't really want an indictment, he can frame it that way.  

 

It's not like there is somebody there...representing Mr. Brown, the dead man,...defending his actions...standing up for him and why he was unjustly (in their mind) shot.  It's all the prosecutor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, anything the DA says is in doubt.  Why?  Conflict of interest...and he did not recuse himself.  His own father was a white policeman who was killed by a black man.  That is a gigantic conflict of interest.  They should have chosen another prosecutor.  

 

That history, whether he was completely unbiased or not, adds doubt to the whole procedure.  

 

There's a reason why people recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest....it's to avoid these doubts.  In such a high stakes case...with so much tension already....there was no reason for him to remain on the case.

 

But I'm saying that ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether he personally was involved or not, because the science shows absolutely no evidence that there was anyone TO prosecute.  Three independent autopsies, federal investigators were involved, etc.  So regardless of this particular man's personal background, the evidence appears to have spoken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my response to ALL of the continued accusations of racism as the cause of this whole mess..... despite the evidence.  Seriously, some of you ladies sound like you didn't listen to a word the prosecuting attorney had to say.  :(

 

In addition to the question Mrs. Mungo raised about how the initial confrontation itself was likely racist and was not covered at all by the Grand Jury, it's the case that even if absolutely everything Wilson said was true and only the witness testimonies that cast him in the best light were true then there's still all kinds of elements of race likely at play here. While I think Wilson himself likely felt more threatened and fired more times as a result, we can't know if that's true or not for sure. However, we can say that the adversarial situation between cops and black communities, which is clearly a part of this shooting, definitely has racism to it. We can say that the increased militarization of the police, which was clearly at play here, has elements of racism. We can say that there is something completely out of whack with our system in how police interact with African Americans in this country. And we can point to how that's the greater context of this shooting.

 

Even if Wilson should have been exonerated, not tried, etc. then we shouldn't look at this and say, well, that just shows that racism wasn't at play and people need to get over it and forget about it. It can still be the case that this particular man should not have been tried or convicted but that the context that led to the shooting still needs to be changed so that more shootings like this don't happen. How police interact with their communities is key to making that change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most had their minds made up before tonight and nothing they heard will change it. It's weird. In the Zimmerman case, I was firmly on one side the entire time (and still am in the camp that Zimmerman should be behind bars) but with this case I started off somewhere completely different than where I ended. I hope they release all the information to the public and I really hope things calm down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forensic Science doesn't tell us why Brown was confronted. It doesn't tell us whether Wilson believed a man running away was an imminent threat to his safety.

 

Have you ever known someone who was fatally shot and the killer walked away scot-free because the person claimed they feel threatened? Because I have. He was white. He had no criminal record (unlike his murderer). He was a military veteran and family man. He was murdered and the police couldn't do anything about it. I think those are CRAP laws that need to be changed.

I agree our gun laws are often inadequate. I am also for more gun control. I also think all cops should have body cams to record all interactions to keep them honest and to protect themselves as well. As for Ferguson,  I will have to read up on it more. I know that I just think that police have a very difficult job and often have to make split second decisions:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Donna, what do you think that the motivation was for THIS shooting? Do you honestly believe that race has nothing to do with it? Do you think a cop would have shot YOU in that instance?

 

http://kdvr.com/2014/09/25/dash-cam-captures-south-carolina-trooper-shooting-unarmed-man-during-traffic-stop/

 

And I think this guy is lucky that the officer's dash cam was on to show exactly what happened.

 

ETA: Here is the cop telling a made up story that doesn't AT ALL match with the dash cam video

 

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chilling-new-audio-from-sc-shooting-tape-335257667981

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the question Mrs. Mungo raised about how the initial confrontation itself was likely racist and was not covered at all by the Grand Jury, it's the case that even if absolutely everything Wilson said was true and only the witness testimonies that cast him in the best light were true then there's still all kinds of elements of race likely at play here. While I think Wilson himself likely felt more threatened and fired more times as a result, we can't know if that's true or not for sure. However, we can say that the adversarial situation between cops and black communities, which is clearly a part of this shooting, definitely has racism to it. We can say that the increased militarization of the police, which was clearly at play here, has elements of racism. We can say that there is something completely out of whack with our system in how police interact with African Americans in this country. And we can point to how that's the greater context of this shooting.

 

Even if Wilson should have been exonerated, not tried, etc. then we shouldn't look at this and say, well, that just shows that racism wasn't at play and people need to get over it and forget about it. It can still be the case that this particular man should not have been tried or convicted but that the context that led to the shooting still needs to be changed so that more shootings like this don't happen. How police interact with their communities is key to making that change.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the saying is "a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict ham sandwich"

 

It is his show.

Yep. He has taken 5 unarmed civilian killings by police officers to the Grand Jury and hasn't gotten a single indictment? That's...interesting.

 

His press conference was bizarre. The lengthy opening statement sounded more like it was from was Officer Wilson's defense attorney than a DA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now it's racist to confront someone matching the description of a suspect?

 

I thought early on they released that this officer didn't know about the robbery at the time he encountered Michael Brown. Maybe he found out during? I'm confused and wouldn't mind a link (other than the prosecutor talking tonight). If I Google, it's full of "Officer Wilson did NOT know about stolen cigars." Did that change at some point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing says justice like looting the meat and liquor mart. I am watching the footage. If you want to prove you are peaceful and not deserving a strong police oversight, you should def. stone the police, loot, shoot guns, carry pipe bombs, knock out cameramen, destroy property, and the like. In a few months, will there be upset because no store owner wants to set up there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Donna, what do you think that the motivation was for THIS shooting? Do you honestly believe that race has nothing to do with it? Do you think a cop would have shot YOU in that instance?

 

http://kdvr.com/2014/09/25/dash-cam-captures-south-carolina-trooper-shooting-unarmed-man-during-traffic-stop/

 

And I think this guy is lucky that the officer's dash cam was on to show exactly what happened.

 

ETA: Here is the cop telling a made up story that doesn't AT ALL match with the dash cam video

 

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chilling-new-audio-from-sc-shooting-tape-335257667981

 

Nice that they extended the trial verdict for nearly 300 days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can still be a federal grand jury if the attorney general chooses.

The FBI and local law enforcement worked together on collecting evidence (witness testimonies, forensic and autopsies)for this case since early on. The FBI has looked at everything that the locals collected and the locals have seen all of the FBI's evidence.

 

If this case is going to be given before a federal grand jury, I would think we'd be hearing about it very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought early on they released that this officer didn't know about the robbery at the time he encountered Michael Brown. Maybe he found out during? I'm confused and wouldn't mind a link (other than the prosecutor talking tonight). If I Google, it's full of "Officer Wilson did NOT know about stolen cigars." Did that change at some point?

I think the timeline was Wilson told them to get out of the road, then realized the description matched, then pulled his vehicle in a way to stop the two men (I couldn't hear this part clearly, baby was fussing at me). So both he knew/he didn't know about the robbery suspect match are technically correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the question Mrs. Mungo raised about how the initial confrontation itself was likely racist and was not covered at all by the Grand Jury, it's the case that even if absolutely everything Wilson said was true and only the witness testimonies that cast him in the best light were true then there's still all kinds of elements of race likely at play here. While I think Wilson himself likely felt more threatened and fired more times as a result, we can't know if that's true or not for sure. However, we can say that the adversarial situation between cops and black communities, which is clearly a part of this shooting, definitely has racism to it. We can say that the increased militarization of the police, which was clearly at play here, has elements of racism. We can say that there is something completely out of whack with our system in how police interact with African Americans in this country. And we can point to how that's the greater context of this shooting.

 

Even if Wilson should have been exonerated, not tried, etc. then we shouldn't look at this and say, well, that just shows that racism wasn't at play and people need to get over it and forget about it. It can still be the case that this particular man should not have been tried or convicted but that the context that led to the shooting still needs to be changed so that more shootings like this don't happen. How police interact with their communities is key to making that change.

 

But the question I keep asking is this:  Even if racism is at play somewhere in the midst of all that, it sounds like many want Wilson to hang in order to set an example.  THAT is what I have a problem with.  That's just racism in reverse.  Exactly how does that help anybody.... other than making some feel good because they think they got revenge?  Do you really think that would solve any problems of racism anywhere?  :(  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the question Mrs. Mungo raised about how the initial confrontation itself was likely racist and was not covered at all by the Grand Jury, it's the case that even if absolutely everything Wilson said was true and only the witness testimonies that cast him in the best light were true then there's still all kinds of elements of race likely at play here. While I think Wilson himself likely felt more threatened and fired more times as a result, we can't know if that's true or not for sure. However, we can say that the adversarial situation between cops and black communities, which is clearly a part of this shooting, definitely has racism to it. We can say that the increased militarization of the police, which was clearly at play here, has elements of racism. We can say that there is something completely out of whack with our system in how police interact with African Americans in this country. And we can point to how that's the greater context of this shooting.

 

Even if Wilson should have been exonerated, not tried, etc. then we shouldn't look at this and say, well, that just shows that racism wasn't at play and people need to get over it and forget about it. It can still be the case that this particular man should not have been tried or convicted but that the context that led to the shooting still needs to be changed so that more shootings like this don't happen. How police interact with their communities is key to making that change.

I think changing how criminals interact with their community and the police would help prevent these shootings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's full of shit, period. He had no business being involved in this case in any way. Period. I'm from this area, so I am very, very familiar with the history. I don't care that he commented about it. He should have recused himself, and the fact that he didn't tells me all I need to know about him.

He wasn't even the one presenting to the grand jury. He was as hand off on this case as he could be while still doing the job that he has been elected to do by the people of St. Louis County.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? I'm far too upset by this whole thing to even respond. I hope you can respect that. This is my town, and my heart is breaking tonight.

 

MrsMommy, I'm really sorry that this is happening in your town. The Bible instructs those who are Christians to mourn with those who mourn, and your heart is breaking. So that's what I will do. Hugs.

 

Right. I think this is the problem. I think *many* states have a problem with allowing shooters (of all types) to get away too easily. We need to bring back duty to retreat clauses. I think the officer should feel in immediate danger in order to fatally shoot someone. He wasn't in immediate danger if the guy was running away and the officer was shooting at a distance.

 

Agreed. It may be that the grand jury saw no reason to indict under CURRENT LAW -- but many, many laws in this arena of legality are deeply flawed. It's not as if this country has never before needed to reconsider the law or its biased and unfair application to just some of its citizens (unless we've already forgotten civil rights history). It's time for a change.

 

 

Putting aside the whole question of whether this decision was just or political and whether or not the shooting was justified, the whole idea that it's right that they gear up and go out in force tonight is part of the culture that caused this in the first place. The culture that said, if you pull your gun, shoot to kill. Shoot as many times as you can. Don't come in a car when you can come in a tank. Don't use a small firearm when you can have cast off military weaponry meant for war zones. That's part of the culture that created this shooting. So someone should say to the police as well, I urge calm, don't resort to violence.

 

Well said.

 

Forensic Science doesn't tell us why Brown was confronted. It doesn't tell us whether Wilson believed a man running away was an imminent threat to his safety.

 

Have you ever known someone who was fatally shot and the killer walked away scot-free because the person claimed they feel threatened? Because I have. He was white. He had no criminal record (unlike his murderer). He was a military veteran and family man. He was murdered and the police couldn't do anything about it. I think those are CRAP laws that need to be changed.

 

Exactly. People who are suggesting that race and racism were at play are not questioning forensic evidence. They are questioning the legacy of racism that has significantly influenced policing in communities of color. Forensic evidence tells us how many times someone was shot, the likely position they were in, how close they were, etc... but there is no forensic evidence to tell us what the internal states/thinking were on either side. So, rather than accuse people who do not see this as "justice served" of not listening to the evidence, consider what they are bringing to the table in terms of understanding this case. 

 

So you're still just going to believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidence?  Nice.

So, rather than accuse people who do not see this as "justice served" of not listening to the evidence, consider what they are bringing to the table in terms of understanding this case. The legacy of strained relationships with law enforcement in communities of color -- the same law enforcement that enforced immoral Jim Crow laws, the same law enforcement and judicial system that failed to consider the forensic evidence in over 1000 lynchings that occurred between 1900 - 1960, the same law enforcement that stops and searches black drivers more than 4x as often as white drivers even though the rates of finding illegal substances are virtually the same, and on and on... There is context that proceeds the forensics. And, with all due respect, some very "nice" people -- who are just as thoughtful as you -- believe that justice was not served. 

 

The particular person you have called out lives in Ferguson -- and you are going to deny her the right to feel angry and heart-broken about what has occurred in her community?. That doesn't feel particularly "nice" -- but I'm sure you are a nice person. A bit of space and grace, particularly for shoes you have not walked in.  Develop some broad sympathies for others because that's what's needed here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasn't even the one presenting to the grand jury. He was as hand off on this case as he could be while still doing the job that he has been elected to do by the people of St. Louis County.

 

"As hands off as he could be" isn't good enough. He should have recused himself. End stop. I don't care if he was presenting or not. He had no business being involved in this case in any way whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the question I keep asking is this:  Even if racism is at play somewhere in the midst of all that, it sounds like many want Wilson to hang in order to set an example.  THAT is what I have a problem with.  That's just racism in reverse.  Exactly how does that help anybody.... other than making some feel good because they think they got revenge?  Do you really think that would solve any problems of racism anywhere?  :(  

 

Where do you get this information?  Can you provide some links?

 

All I see are people disappointed that the man who killed Michael Brown will not get his day in court. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...