Ferguson

[ktgrok]

Again, some of those witnesses claimed things that 1.) were disproven by forensics, and 2.) they didn't actually see (assumed or were told by others).

 

Not all witnesses are credible.

 

Yes, but some witnesses were NOT disproven, and were still in the running as credible. So I can still question hwo things went down, without ignoring the forensic evidence, which is what was being insinuated. 

[poppy]

But, all of that is kind of a moot point anyway because Michael Brown was not fleeing when he was killed.  He was coming towards Wilson.  You can argue that he was coming at him to surrender (which I find completely illogical, but I admit it can be argued), but he wasn't fleeing, so trying to apply case law about a fleeing suspect that wasn't fleeing is probably more the mistake that the ADA was addressing, rather than the bombshell that the blog contends.

He was shot while he was fleeing.  That is deadly force. He turned around for the shot that killed him.

 

Wikipedia's summary:

 

Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street, when Wilson drove up and told them to move to the sidewalk. An altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle until Wilson's gun was fired. Brown and Johnson then fled in different directions, with Wilson in pursuit of Brown, firing several more times. In the entire altercation, Wilson fired a total of twelve rounds;^[2] Brown was hit by seven or eight^[3] (all from the front) and the last was probably the fatal shot.^[4][5][6] Witness reports differ as to whether and when Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He was shot while he was fleeing. That is deadly force. He turned around for the shot that killed him.

 

Wikipedia's summary:

 

Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street, when Wilson drove up and told them to move to the sidewalk. An altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle until Wilson's gun was fired. Brown and Johnson then fled in different directions, with Wilson in pursuit of Brown, firing several more times. In the entire altercation, Wilson fired a total of twelve rounds;^[2] Brown was hit by seven or eight^[3] (all from the front) and the last was probably the fatal shot.^[4][5][6] Witness reports differ as to whether and when Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired.

He was not shot while fleeing. That simply is false. Every shot that hit him entered his body from the front.

[EmseB]

He was shot while he was fleeing.  That is deadly force. He turned around for the shot that killed him.

 

Wikipedia's summary:

 

Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street, when Wilson drove up and told them to move to the sidewalk. An altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle until Wilson's gun was fired. Brown and Johnson then fled in different directions, with Wilson in pursuit of Brown, firing several more times. In the entire altercation, Wilson fired a total of twelve rounds;^[2] Brown was hit by seven or eight^[3] (all from the front) and the last was probably the fatal shot.^[4][5][6] Witness reports differ as to whether and when Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired.

 

To your first three sentences:  No, he was shot in the front all 6 times.  He did not turn around for the shot that killed him.  He was never shot while running away from Wilson.

 

To the wiki summary:  This seems highly editorialized, not from forensics or autopsy reports (which say he was shot 6 times, as far as I can find).  It also omits the fact that Brown went back toward Wilson and he wasn't just running away.  The bolded has to be conjecture as well.  Wilson did miss Brown a few times, but the times he hit him, Brown was coming at him, not fleeing.  There's no physical evidence to suggest he shot at Brown while he was running away.  The physical evidence suggests that he was shooting at Brown in order to prevent him from advancing further than he already had.

 

Also, to the last sentence in the wiki summary, yes witness reports differ, however the forensic evidence shows that Brown was, in fact, moving towards Wilson when the shots were fired.  So, no, he was not shot while he was fleeing.  If that were the case, he would have either a) been shot in the back, or b )the blood/forensic evidence would show that he was moving away from Wilson backwards, when in fact, it shows him coming toward Wilson.

 

I don't even know why I'm rehashing this again.  The forensic evidence is pretty clear on what physically happened.  The fact that some people say he was shot while he was fleeing or shot in the back or running away from Wilson is completely irrelevant because the physical evidence shows that was not the case.  If a witness is saying that, it is an easy binary to say that their testimony isn't credible.  People are still citing Darion Johnson as a credible witness, saying his testimony is just "conflicting" when it is actually demonstrably false.  How do you even have a discussion if people still think things could have possibly, maybe, might have gone down the way Johnson said they did?

 

Again, I think it could theoretically be argued that Brown was coming at Wilson in order to surrender.  I think it can be theoretically argued that Brown was coming toward a police officer who was shooting at him in order to surrender.  I think that could be the case because I don't know what Brown's motivation was in coming at Wilson.  I think it goes against everything I know about human behavior to say that a man with any sort of street smarts would run towards an officer (or anyone) who was shooting at him in order to get them to stop shooting, but I suppose that could happen.  But it's not debatable, based on the physical evidence, that Brown was in fact coming towards Wilson and not fleeing.

[Miss Peregrine]

Misquoting someone is never immaterial. He did not call him an 'incredible demon hulk'

[poppy]

Sorry, meant to say he was shot at while fleeing.

[poppy]

 

 

People are still citing Darion Johnson as a credible witness, saying his testimony is just "conflicting" when it is actually demonstrably false.  How do you even have a discussion if people still think things could have possibly, maybe, might have gone down the way Johnson said they did?

 

Let's remember exactly what crime Darian Johnson is guilty of committing: Jaywalking.

 

He may be wrong about what happened. Eyewitnesses often get it wrong, even unintentionally-- as we all know.  But he has MUCH MUCH less reason to lie than Darren Wilson.  And I find some of what he says more credible than what Darren Wilson says.... for example, portraying the very start of the encounter as somewhat mutually aggressive, instead of Wilson's version where he said "hey guys what's wrong with the sidewalk?"

[SKL]

Wow, you've really made it sound like he had no choice in the matter because Wilson was innocent. That's the narrative he sold, so I'm not surprised to hear it worked. But i don't buy it. Why did he use an extraordinary and unusual grand jury technique for this trial only? Why were other legal analyst and professionals skeptical of his approach?

 

The principle that says prosecutors don't prosecute when there isn't clear evidence making the prosecutor believe in the accused's guilt is a principle that mainly protects non-cops.  We know that many actual criminals have gotten off as a result of this principle.  We as a society prefer this over risking the conviction of innocent people.  The policy wasn't invented for Mr. Wilson.

[Catwoman]

Immaterial.

 

We all know what Hulk Hogan looked like. Enormous, super muscled, like he could pick up a car and throw it. Now add demon.

 

Wilson created a word picture of Brown possessing a supernatural evil strength. The same word pictures have been created in other cases involving the deaths of black men at the hands of the police.

 

Plenty of people on this thread have explained the historical and cultural background of why this is perception based on implicit assumptions about black men.

 

I can't - but sadly I can - believe someone would want to nitpick in this way.

You seem to be doing quite a bit of nitpicking yourself. ;)

 

And I fail to understand why you are so certain that the officer wouldn't have described a very large and strong white man in exactly the same way in which he described Michael Brown. We have absolutely no way of knowing that.

[poppy]

 

 

Again, I think it could theoretically be argued that Brown was coming at Wilson in order to surrender.  I think it can be theoretically argued that Brown was coming toward a police officer who was shooting at him in order to surrender.  I think that could be the case because I don't know what Brown's motivation was in coming at Wilson.  I think it goes against everything I know about human behavior to say that a man with any sort of street smarts would run towards an officer (or anyone) who was shooting at him in order to get them to stop shooting, but I suppose that could happen.  But it's not debatable, based on the physical evidence, that Brown was in fact coming towards Wilson and not fleeing.

 

If he was charging, he was charging a police officer who had his gun drawn and pointed at him.... that doesn't sound like human nature either, does it?

[ktgrok]

I truly don't understand this.  The forensics reports say that Brown was moving toward Wilson when he was shot.  The forensics say Wilson was moving away from Brown (backing up) while he was shooting.  The forensics say the shots were not consistent with those who said Brown had his hands up and was surrendering.

 

Are you saying you think Brown decided to come towards Wilson after being shot at repeatedly?  And he did so in order to surrender?  That doesn't match with anyone's testimony or the evidence.  :confused1:

 

I had not seen forensic that stated Brown was moving forward when shot, only things that said he could have been falling forward, could have been running/walking forward. If I am misunderstanding, I'd love a link or more info. That's why I asked, earlier in the thread. It truly wasn't a hypothetical question, I want to know!

[SKL]

Immaterial.

 

We all know what Hulk Hogan looked like. Enormous, super muscled, like he could pick up a car and throw it. Now add demon.

 

Wilson created a word picture of Brown possessing a supernatural evil strength. The same word pictures have been created in other cases involving the deaths of black men at the hands of the police.

 

Plenty of people on this thread have explained the historical and cultural background of why this is perception based on implicit assumptions about black men.

 

I can't - but sadly I can - believe someone would want to nitpick in this way.

 

I don't actually think you know who Hulk Hogan is.  He cannot pick up a car and throw it.  He's a 61-year-old white guy known for his wrestling career.

 

The Hulk Hogan comment and the "demon" comment were nowhere near each other in the testimony.

[poppy]

Is that honestly what you think Darren Wilson meant when he said Mike Brown looks like Hulk Hogan? The current senior citizen version? Not  the steroid-using, almost cartoonishly muscled Hulk Hogan from 25 years ago?

[LucyStoner]

I don't actually think you know who Hulk Hogan is. He cannot pick up a car and throw it. He's a 61-year-old white guy known for his wrestling career.

Must we now resort to defining simile and hyperbole?

 

She didn't say he could throw a car. She said he was huge and looked *like* he could throw a car. Most people probably think of 1980s Hulk Hogan vs. 2014 Hulk Hogan. Michael Brown was not muscle bound like Hulk Hogan, he was not a steroid using body builder wrestler. If you will defend Wilson's hyperbole perhaps you can give Sadie a little latitude as well?

[SKL]

Is that honestly what you think Darren Wilson meant when he said Mike Brown looks like Hulk Hogan? The current senior citizen version? Not  the steroid-using, almost cartoonishly muscled Hulk Hogan from 25 years ago?

 

He was saying that he felt like MB was strong enough and aggressive enough to push him around.  Which is pretty believable after seeing the video where he did in fact push a guy around as if the smaller man were a toy.

 

I don't think it's in question that MB was strong and muscular, is it?

[SKL]

Must we now resort to defining simile and hyperbole?

 

She didn't say he could throw a car. She said he was huge and looked *like* he could throw a car. Most people probably think of 1980s Hulk Hogan vs. 2014 Hulk Hogan. Michael Brown was not muscle bound like Hulk Hogan, he was not a steroid using body builder wrestler. If you will defend Wilson's hyperbole perhaps you can give Sadie a little latitude as well?

 

Sadie's comment suggests she is thinking of The Incredible Hulk rather than Hulk Hogan.

[poppy]

He was saying that he felt like MB was strong enough and aggressive enough to push him around.  Which is pretty believable after seeing the video where he did in fact push a guy around as if the smaller man were a toy.

 

I don't think it's in question that MB was strong and muscular, is it?

 

Round and round we go.  Darren Wilson is 6'4".

[poppy]

Sadie's comment suggests she is thinking of The Incredible Hulk rather than Hulk Hogan.

 

Wilson's comments, you mean?

[Catwoman]

Sadie's comment suggests she is thinking of The Incredible Hulk rather than Hulk Hogan.

A big green guy played by a big white guy. :D

[Farrar]

Okay, anyone who feels like they can't understand the link between not intending to be prejudiced and achieving a biased result, please, please read this article about the research into bias. Actually, it's just really fascinating (as is the bias test it links to), so it's worthwhile reading for anyone:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/02/science-cops-shoot-young-black-men/

 

From the article:

 

 

These people who voice mind-boggling opinions while swearing they’re not racist at all — they make sense to science, because the paradigm for understanding prejudice has evolved. There “doesn’t need to be intent, doesn’t need to be desire; there could even be desire in the opposite direction,†explains University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, a prominent IAT researcher. “But biased results can still occur.â€

 

[momacacia]

I can certainly see where the leverage that Brown had over Wilson when Brown was leaning into the car grabbing at his gun put Wilson at a physical disadvantage. Leverage and gravity were working for Brown at that point. It seems it was at this point Wilson began fearing for his physical safety and possibly his life, and thought that he was in imminent danger of being shot. I can see where the comparative strength of the two, at least at that point in time, seemed disparate to the degree that Wilson describes.

[poppy]

I can certainly see where the leverage that Brown had over Wilson when Brown was leaning into the car grabbing at his gun put Wilson at a physical disadvantage. Leverage and gravity were working for Brown at that point. It seems it was at this point Wilson began fearing for his physical safety and possibly his life, and thought that he was in imminent danger of being shot. I can see where the comparative strength of the two, at least at that point in time, seemed disparate to the degree that Wilson describes.

 

I could see that if it were a car, but it was a large SUV.  Looks like a Chevy Tahoe. Which puts the driver at a high position, unlike a car.

Photo of the vehicle: http://heavy.com/news/2014/11/darren-wilson-grand-jury-new-ferguson-crime-scene-photos/39/

[SarahB82]

The standard for a grand jury is "probable cause". As poppy indicated, the biggest scandal here is that the grand jury was run in a non-adversarial fashion. It was basically calculated to deliver a no-bill and prevent a trial. That's almost unheard of.

Are the grand jury transcripts available for other cases? How do you know this is unheard of in cases such as this one? The process is generally regarded as secret.

[SKL]

Wilson's comments, you mean?

 

No, his actual words in the transcript said Hulk Hogan, not The Incredible Hulk.  Since Wilson is relatively young (compared to those of us who were kids when The Incredible Hulk was on TV), and he actually said Hulk Hogan, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume he was talking about the big green guy.  He was talking about an actual guy who is strong and muscular and not generally viewed as a "bad guy."  It seems clear he was referring to strength and not race at that point.

[poppy]

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Hulk Hogan was a villain or hero during his professional wrestling career.  Wilson clearly mean "intimidating" and was using a (1) very bulky steroid using bodybuilder (2) scripted cartoonish character to describe the young man who he shot.

[SKL]

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Hulk Hogan was a villain or hero during his professional wrestling career.  Wilson clearly mean "intimidating" and was using a (1) very bulky steroid using bodybuilder (2) scripted cartoonish character to describe the young man who he shot.

 

Yeah, that part of the testimony was obviously intended to show he was intimidated by the situation with Brown when he was in the car.  What is wrong with that?  Is it racist to be intimidated by a person who is hitting you, pushing you around, and going after your gun?

 

The guy he pushed around in the store looked intimidated too.  Was that racist of him too?

 

[Laurie4b]

Are the grand jury transcripts available for other cases? How do you know this is unheard of in cases such as this one? The process is generally regarded as secret.

 

We know because that's standard operating procedure. The process isn't secret, the content of a given case is secret.  You can google that and I think you'll find that nearly all the legal analysts say the same thing. (There's always an outlier or two on for controversy.)  That's why you hear the famous line so often that a prosecutor can "get a ham sandwich indicted." The process is totally rigged in favor of the prosecution because in many states,  there is no requirement that a prosecutor show any evidence that supports the defendant, even if he knows it exists.

 

It's not supposed to be like a mini-trial, just enough to say that there are reasonable grounds evidence that a crime occurred. That's the same level that's needed to get a search warrant. (No one has to prove that there is reason to search, just that there is a reasonable suspicion to search.)  It's less than a "preponderance of the evidence" (civil trial standard) which means 51% or more.  So "probable cause" is a pretty low bar. That's why grand juries rarely do not return an indictment. Had the prosecutor wanted an indictment, he could have gotten it. This will not sound fair, but he could have presented only testimony from witnesses who believe they saw Michael Brown raise his hands to surrender, along with forensice evidence that MB was killed by gun fire from the front. He would not be obligated to present any exculpatory evidence, certainly not to allow Wilson to testify or to present any other witnesses that corroborated Wilson's story.   That would have been normal grand jury procedure. In this case, the prosecutor did a "data dump" and let the jurors try to sort through it.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/cases-and-controversies-not-your-typical-grand-jury-investigation/  (link from the blog of the Supreme Court of the United States.  This is a very sound analysis, as one might expect given the source. Note the paragraph from the Williams case: prosecutors have no constitutional obligation to provide exculpatory evidence in a grand jury proceeding. (State laws can require them to but since the proceedings are secret, the defense attorneys will never know if they did or not and there often isn't even a judge involved. )

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-prosecutors-present-evidence-helps-the-defendant-grand-juries.html

 

You can say that was the fairest thing to do; other defendants, however, don't get the same treatment in a grand jury proceeding.

[poppy]

Yeah, that part of the testimony was obviously intended to show he was intimidated by the situation with Brown when he was in the car.  What is wrong with that?  Is it racist to be intimidated by a person who is hitting you, pushing you around, and going after your gun?

 

The guy he pushed around in the store looked intimidated too.  Was that racist of him too?

 

 

I know it's obvious that he is trying to make it sound like he was intimidated. This discussion started thanks to you saying he was referring to a "61 year old white guy".  Blah blah blah.  Mike Brown is still dead and buried.

[EmseB]

If he was charging, he was charging a police officer who had his gun drawn and pointed at him.... that doesn't sound like human nature either, does it?

 

No, it sounds extremely stupid.  But so does robbing a convenience store and assaulting the clerk for a handful of cigarillos.  So does confronting a cop in his police car and at the very least, reaching inside to tustle with him.*

 

The fact remains, Brown was coming towards Wilson when he was shot.  The physical evidence tells us that.  We can debate why he was doing so, but he was not fleeing.  He was not running away.  He did not get shot and then turn around as so many people are still asserting.

 

 

*A cop swearing at two guys who are jaywalking sounds pretty stupid to me as well.  Not criminally stupid, but definitely not trying to make an easy arrest and take Brown in for questioning about the convenience store.  I do think, when the cop did that and then came back because of the robbery suspicions the well was probably poisoned, but I doubt Wilson knew to what extent.

[Sdel]

Okay, anyone who feels like they can't understand the link between not intending to be prejudiced and achieving a biased result, please, please read this article about the research into bias. Actually, it's just really fascinating (as is the bias test it links to), so it's worthwhile reading for anyone:

 

I guess my biggest issue with these threads is that I feel that they tend to feel one-sided.  Everyone throws out all the "bias" studies, says it isn't necessarily a conscious thing, and then attach it to a not-so-nice tone that generally comes across as:  see, white people can't help BUT be racist.

 

Surely the members of minority races are not immune from their own set of unconscious biases that have just as much bearing on a situation. I think a much more productive dialogue about racism would examine both sets of biases not just the one. 

 

Stefanie

 

[Farrar]

I guess my biggest issue with these threads is that I feel that they tend to feel one-sided.  Everyone throws out all the "bias" studies, says it isn't necessarily a conscious thing, and then attach it to a not-so-nice tone that generally comes across as:  see, white people can't help BUT be racist.

 

Surely the members of minority races are not immune from their own set of unconscious biases that have just as much bearing on a situation. I think a much more productive dialogue about racism would examine both sets of biases not just the one. 

 

Stefanie

 

 

Um, did you read the article? There's a huge set of charts that break down prejudice exhibited in these studies by race and gender. Of course all people of all race and ethnic groups are filled with prejudices - that's part of how the human brain works. Also, the article talked about ways to retrain our brains. It wasn't a one sided, blame the white people sort of article at all.

[Pam in CT]

I guess my biggest issue with these threads is that I feel that they tend to feel one-sided.  Everyone throws out all the "bias" studies, says it isn't necessarily a conscious thing, and then attach it to a not-so-nice tone that generally comes across as:  see, white people can't help BUT be racist.

 

Surely the members of minority races are not immune from their own set of unconscious biases that have just as much bearing on a situation. I think a much more productive dialogue about racism would examine both sets of biases not just the one. 

 

Stefanie

 

 

The text of Farrar's linked article is pretty clear that *all* people of *all* races are subject to unconscious / implicit bias (as I think you are saying yourself).

[Sdel]

Um, did you read the article? There's a huge set of charts that break down prejudice exhibited in these studies by race and gender. Of course all people of all race and ethnic groups are filled with prejudices - that's part of how the human brain works. Also, the article talked about ways to retrain our brains. It wasn't a one sided, blame the white people sort of article at all.

 

I wasn't talking about the article at all, I was talking about how these discussions generally feel and how since we all want to agree there are unconscious biases affecting our thought processes, I think it would be more productive discussing the biases of both sides.  All that ever gets discussed in these types of threads is one set of biases; the white bias against minorities.  For those wanting to foster discussion about race and racism generally, don't you think it is just as important to acknowledge the biases being brought by all sides? 

 

Stefanie

[poppy]

I guess my biggest issue with these threads is that I feel that they tend to feel one-sided.  Everyone throws out all the "bias" studies, says it isn't necessarily a conscious thing, and then attach it to a not-so-nice tone that generally comes across as:  see, white people can't help BUT be racist.

 

Surely the members of minority races are not immune from their own set of unconscious biases that have just as much bearing on a situation. I think a much more productive dialogue about racism would examine both sets of biases not just the one. 

 

Stefanie

 

 

 

When you say more productive.... what 'product' are you seeking?

 

For me, I don't really care if people are racist. I am in the 'we're all a little bit racist' camp ......and no I don't just mean white people  I mean, it's not good, but it's not a crime.  We are all flawed in ways.  But, I do think we should strive to have a fair justice system. You put on  a badge, or get elected prosecutor, and yes I will hold you to a high standard.   

[Sdel]

The text of Farrar's linked article is pretty clear that *all* people of *all* races are subject to unconscious / implicit bias (as I think you are saying yourself).

 

Yes, exactly what I was saying.  I was just pointing out, these discussions don't ever really seem to discuss that and so, feel very one sided.

 

Stefanie

[poppy]

Yes, exactly what I was saying.  I was just pointing out, these discussions don't ever really seem to discuss that and so, feel very one sided.

 

Stefanie

 

20+ pages and 1000+ posts later, you think everyone is agreeing?  I'm baffled.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Hulk Hogan was a villain or hero during his professional wrestling career. Wilson clearly mean "intimidating" and was using a (1) very bulky steroid using bodybuilder (2) scripted cartoonish character to describe the young man who he shot.

He didn't use Hulk Hogan to describe Brown physically.

 

Note: H

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Hulk Hogan was a villain or hero during his professional wrestling career. Wilson clearly mean "intimidating" and was using a (1) very bulky steroid using bodybuilder (2) scripted cartoonish character to describe the young man who he shot.

He didn't use Hulk Hogan to describe Brown physically.

 

Note: Hogan was the ultimate hero 85% of his career. Not even debatable. (DH and I happen to have several connections to the pro wrestling industry so sadly I know this.)

[Farrar]

Yes, exactly what I was saying.  I was just pointing out, these discussions don't ever really seem to discuss that and so, feel very one sided.

 

Stefanie

 

But the power is very one sided as well. And if you look at the breakdown of the data in the article, it shows that blacks have a slight bias in favor of blacks, but it's massively lower than the bias against blacks that was exhibited by every other group. Whites were at .40 against, every other group was at least about .15 against (with most much more), but blacks were at less than .05 in favor of blacks.

 

I really urge people go to try the test out as well. It's linked in the article. There's one about gender on there as well. It's an interesting thing. You don't really understand what you're taking or why it tells you anything until you're done.

 

I think one of the problems with saying, "Well, everyone is prejudiced," is that it's - like the phenomena I was talking about up thread where everyone wants to talk about how "everyone" made mistakes - it excuses anyone from having to deal with the ramifications of their bias. It excuses us from doing anything about it. If everyone is biased and everyone is equally biased, then, oh well. But everyone is not equally biased, everyone does not have equal privileges and powers, and in fact we can do something about it.

[Laurie4b]

Okay, anyone who feels like they can't understand the link between not intending to be prejudiced and achieving a biased result, please, please read this article about the research into bias. Actually, it's just really fascinating (as is the bias test it links to), so it's worthwhile reading for anyone:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/02/science-cops-shoot-young-black-men/

 

From the article:

 

This article is absolutely fascinating. Would you consider starting a separate thread on this article so that the info doesn't get buried?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, he said 'I felt like a 5 year old, holding onto Hulk Hogan.' So he felt vulnerable, small, powerless, threatened - the implication is that Brown was the Hulk figure, who was the strong, threatening, large, powerful one. Also demonic.

Which is different than saying he looked like Hogan.

[CaffeineDiary]

Are the grand jury transcripts available for other cases? How do you know this is unheard of in cases such as this one? The process is generally regarded as secret.

 

A number of articles have been cited in this thread explaining how unusual this grand jury process is. 

 

The details of any particular grand jury are secret.  The general thrust of the process (and the prosecutor's adversarial role in it) is not secret.  A prosecutor taking a dive, as McCullough did here, is almost unheard of.

 

If you need more than that, my suggestion is "Ask any lawyer."

[Sdel]

When you say more productive.... what 'product' are you seeking?

 

For me, I don't really care if people are racist. I am in the 'we're all a little bit racist' camp ......and no I don't just mean white people  I mean, it's not good, but it's not a crime.  We are all flawed in ways.  But, I do think we should strive to have a fair justice system. You put on  a badge, or get elected prosecutor, and yes I will hold you to a high standard.   

 

I actually agree.....I do believe that there are societal problems that are in essence unsolvable even if we all try to solve them. 

 

I just feel that these discussions tend to lose more people than they open up when they focus on just the white side of the equation.  I think you get further along on the race discussion when the focus is more on the whole relationship. 

 

Stefanie

[poppy]

I actually agree.....I do believe that there are societal problems that are in essence unsolvable even if we all try to solve them. 

 

I just feel that these discussions tend to lose more people than they open up when they focus on just the white side of the equation.  I think you get further along on the race discussion when the focus is more on the whole relationship. 

 

Stefanie

 

I know talking about race makes people feel uncomfortable and defensive.  But I have to ask again..... what is your goal here? If you could persuade a lot of people right now to agree, what would you be trying to convince them to believe?  

 

 

[Sdel]

Stefanie. What are you doing? You're saying, nay REPEATING, that people with brown skin can have racial biases as well as white people.

 

If you look back through I think you'll notice that no one disagrees.

 

Well, since I just lost my long winded post, I'll just say never mind.  I know what I mean but I'm honestly not sure I can effectively communicate it.  I just know there are two sides to every story, both sides contribute something, and neither side can be ignored.  I'm not even sure I could effectively articulate what those biases may be since I've see so little referencing them. Surely there are some, since everyone agrees that everyone has racial biases.  I don't think you can separate them though, they have to be examined and worked on together. 

 

Stefanie

[LucyStoner]

Yeah, as a white woman I really suffer from the implicit biases those who are not white, my own husband included, hold about my type. I need to be heard!

 

Not.

Yeah, me too. Tonight I was stopped by a police officer. I was inadvertently driving without tags properly displayed. Not a minor issue. Turns out my husband reversed the plates when the dealer mailed them to us. No joke. The officer was sure it was just some mistake and sent me on my way *without even running my license* or asking to see my insurance card. Yes, I am a nice enough looking gal, and was driving a beige minivan with a big ass Costco load but they didn't even check to see if I had warrants or was driving legally insured. Another time recently I was stopped with EXPIRED tabs and I didn't.even.have.my.drivers.license.because.my.wallet.was.lost and I was let go with a friendly reminder to pick up my new tabs.

 

I am so steamed to be pulled over while driving while white...wait. That's not right.

[Sdel]

20+ pages and 1000+ posts later, you think everyone is agreeing?  I'm baffled.

 

I don't see what is so confusing.  It was stated that the text of the article was saying *all* people have some sort of bias....several people agreed with that and/or have stated no one was disagreeing with that.  My statement focused on how, while no one disagreed there were biases from the other side, no one ever discusses the biases from the other side and what they bring to the table.  But it is obvious your going to take exception to anything that is said on that matter so I think I'll just move on.  And for the record, I absolutely believe the societal message to black males has been "go away, you aren't wanted" for a very long time.

 

Stefanie

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Guys,

 

This has been a long and complex thread, and it's now in danger of degenerating into petty bickering, so I'm going to lock it. If there are specific issues that you still wish to discuss, you can start new (and more focused) threads.

 

SWB