Jump to content

Menu

Ferguson


Scrub Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?  :(  

 

That may be your perception, but I'm not seeing that. My own disappointment is that the evidence, as presented to the public, seemed like it did warrant a trial. I'm sad that we won't get a public day in court where the public can also hear the evidence and it can be more fully explored than in a grand jury. I'm also dismayed and disappointed by the appearance of conflict in terms of the prosecutor, as others have pointed out. I don't know if he deserves to be convicted or not. But I think a real trial does help solve problems of racism, yes.

 

I think it's possible that Wilson's story is entirely true and that as the law stands he shouldn't go to jail. But I don't think we can say, well, this kid was going for his gun and therefore there was no racism and everything is peachy keen. I still don't comprehend in what world shooting a person that many times is good policing. I want a world where we shoot as a last resort to incapacitate, not to kill. I want a world where young black men don't rightfully fear for their lives every time a policeman confronts them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 997
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Give me a freaking break. Do you know anything about the prosecuting attorney? I was addressing him specifically. Apart from the case. I trust him as far as I can throw him. Yeah, it's real nice what a jackass he is.

 

Actually, I do know a bit about the court system, attorneys (both prosecuting and defending), the "system", state police, and forensics.... having worked for both trial lawyers, and the forensics division of a state police agency many years ago.  I had a part in working with a Japanese company in the development and initial implementation of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System way back in the 80's, too.  What *I* have been looking for throughout this whole mess is the scientific evidence. 

 

The media (and some in our government) played heavily on people's emotions from Day 1 of this ordeal.....  and it worked.  Because now, there are many who refuse to believe that no crime was committed because they believe their emotions over the evidence.  To me, that is the saddest part of this whole thing.  Yes, it was wrong decades ago to prosecute and hang black men for crimes they didn't commit just because they were black.  But what does it solve by doing the same to a white man today?  The act of getting revenge doesn't bring peace.  :(   

 

I could almost guarantee that if Brown had been white and Wilson had been black, it would've never gotten this far.  {sigh} 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think changing how criminals interact with their community and the police would help prevent these shootings.

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/senators-criticize-militarization-of-local-police-departments-1410287125

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/new-aclu-report-takes-a-snapshot-of-police-militarization-in-the-united-states/

 

 

 

"It's hard to see a difference between the militarized and increasingly federalized police force we see in towns across America today and the force that Madison had in mind when he said 'a standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be a safe companion to liberty,' " said Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) on Tuesday, referring to one of the Founding Fathers

 

Pigs are flying when I agree with Coburn but he's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think changing how criminals interact with their community and the police would help prevent these shootings.

 

Sure. But we can't necessarily legislate and change the criminals. We CAN legislate, retrain, de-militarize and change the police and their tactics so that de-escalation, not increased escalation, is always the first stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I do know a bit about the court system, attorneys (both prosecuting and defending), the "system", state police, and forensics.... having worked for both trial lawyers, and the forensics division of a state police agency many years ago.  I had a part in working with a Japanese company in the development and initial implementation of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System way back in the 80's, too.  What *I* have been looking for throughout this whole mess is the scientific evidence. 

 

The media (and some in our government) played heavily on people's emotions from Day 1 of this ordeal.....  and it worked.  Because now, there are many who refuse to believe that no crime was committed because they believe their emotions over the evidence.  To me, that is the saddest part of this whole thing.  Yes, it was wrong decades ago to prosecute and hang black men for crimes they didn't commit just because they were black.  But what does it solve by doing the same to a white man today?  The act of getting revenge doesn't bring peace.  :(   

 

I could almost guarantee that if Brown had been white and Wilson had been black, it would've never gotten this far.  {sigh} 

 

I meant, do you know anything about this prosecuting attorney, Bob McCulloch? Because he has life experiences which make it pretty much impossible for him to do his job in this case. He never should have been involved, in any way, and if he was a true professional, he would have realized that, and recused himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can't even say that he is sad for Michael Brown's family's loss?  A simple statement like that? 

 

Seriously. If he "can't" say something like that, because of the possibility of a civil trial, we have bigger problems in this country than I had imagined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to say that if I had any question about racism still being alive and well here that a few on my FB feed right now would show me how wrong I am. It makes me so sad that seemingly normal people don't realize how horrible they really are. My friends list is down a few now and my heart hurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally want police officers who can resolve conflicts with unarmed persons without fatally shooting them. I've seen cops effectively deescalate riskier situations than an unarmed shoplifting suspect and I really want to know why we are ok with officers who find themselves unable to do anything short of deadly force?

 

I am not surprised that there is no indictment. Can anyone name, without google, any cop who has been held criminally accountable after a case like this? In my city an officer (Birk) shot an elder, most deaf NA man (John T Williams) dead ON CAMERA and while he resigned and the shooting was found to be unjustified, the DA didn't press charges.

 

It's not like this is uncommon or any great shock when the cop gets off without criminal repercussions. The lack of shock though doesn't make it any more just or moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to say that if I had any question about racism still being alive and well here that a few on my FB feed right now would show me how wrong I am. It makes me so sad that seemingly normal people don't realize how horrible they really are. My friends list is down a few now and my heart hurts.

 

Same here. I'm shocked and sickened by what I'm seeing. And since this is local to me, I'm seeing a lot of it. I don't even know who I really have left that I can look in the eye any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I highly doubt that the forensic evidence was that cut and dried.  It certainly cannot tell you the actions of Officer Wilson prior to the shooting.  His motives, etc.

 

The prosecution matters....because he's the one who presents the case.  He can question very hard a witness whose testimony he doesn't agree with or like.  He can give a pass to somebody's testimony he agrees with.  He can frame results however he wants.  It's all his show.  And if he had somebody else present it, you don't think their boss tells them what they want and how to approach the case? If he wanted to remove the doubt, he should have recused himself.  Plain and simple.

 

I'll also add that eyewitness testimony is not always that accurate.  I remember learning that 30+ years ago in psychology class and it still holds.   The fact that there was conflicting...does not surprise me.  And yes, how that testimony was presented would be influenced by the DA. How he asks the questions...how he follows up...etc.

 

"So why is NRC weighing in now? For one thing, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation provided the National Academies a $333,000 grant last year to undertake the study. But it would have happened sooner or later, Loftus says, given the increasing number of people convicted with eyewitness testimony who have been subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence. Some 75% of the wrongful convictions for rape and murder, including a number that led to people being scheduled for execution, were based on eyewitness testimony."  http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2014/10/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh

 
(Meant to highlight that whole last bit, but my trackpad is acting weird.)
 
 
I wish that the Brown family had advocated more for a change in the DA.  That would help alleviate some questions for me.  Maybe they did, I have no idea.  But to remove doubt from the proceedings, definitely he should have recused himself.  Any honest DA would.
 
I hope justice was served.  I have my doubts.  I hope that Officer Wilson's future life is not like that of George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony.  People who were acquitted in actual trials, but were still viewed as guilty. I do not think he went out that night planning to shoot and kill a black man, or any man.  What I would really love to see is for Officer Wilson to apologize to the Brown family for the death of their son (if he has not already), and for the two sides to work together to ease the systemic racism which exist in Ferguson and beyond.
 
BTW, it's interesting reading to read how black parents have to raise their children to be meek whenever they are confronted by law enforcement.  I've never felt that.  I've always felt free, for lack of a better word.  There was a good incident not too long ago when a white attorney stood up for a neighborhood handyman who was stopped because he "looked like he didn't belong."  An unarmed black father was tased for picking up his kids from school.  
 
We have a problem in this country.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be your perception, but I'm not seeing that. My own disappointment is that the evidence, as presented to the public, seemed like it did warrant a trial. I'm sad that we won't get a public day in court where the public can also hear the evidence and it can be more fully explored than in a grand jury. I'm also dismayed and disappointed by the appearance of conflict in terms of the prosecutor, as others have pointed out. I don't know if he deserves to be convicted or not. But I think a real trial does help solve problems of racism, yes.

 

I think it's possible that Wilson's story is entirely true and that as the law stands he shouldn't go to jail. But I don't think we can say, well, this kid was going for his gun and therefore there was no racism and everything is peachy keen.

 

Ahhhh...... But HAD there been a trial, Wilson would not (should not) have been on trial for racism.  He would've been charged with murder or involuntary manslaughter. 

 

Besides, I still don't see how it's racism to confront (verbally, not physically) a man who fits the description of the thief that was just broadcast over police radio.

 

 

 

I still don't comprehend in what world shooting a person that many times is good policing. I want a world where we shoot as a last resort to incapacitate, not to kill.

 

Dh and I discussed the # of times Wilson fired.  It sounded to us like initially, Brown approached Wilson's car with Wilson still inside, physically confronted him (beating him in the face), and Wilson tried to warn him to back off by shooting twice inside the car at first.  Then he shot outside the window, grazing his hand, because Wilson wouldn't back off.  And so forth.  So it sounded to us like he was probably firing multiple warning shots before one of the bullets killed him.  (And we don't yet know ALL the details of what happened between Point A and Point B.... but the evidence does at least seem clear that Brown physically attacked Wilson while Wilson was still inside the car.  If it was me, and I had a gun or any other kind of weapon on me, you bet I'd be firing at him, too!  And THAT has got NOTHING to do with color!)

 

 

 

 

I want a world where young black men don't rightfully fear for their lives every time a policeman confronts them.

 

How about a world where young black men don't antagonize a police officer just because he's white, almost DARING him to shoot?  You don't think that happens, too?  Especially if said young man has drugs in his system and just committed a crime? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was young, and black, I'd be mightily tempted to riot myself. I can understand the anger..

So violence is the solution? Looting and vandalizing local businesses, and setting cars and a building on fire is justified?

 

Peaceful protests are one thing. Rioting is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here. I'm shocked and sickened by what I'm seeing. And since this is local to me, I'm seeing a lot of it. I don't even know who I really have left that I can look in the eye any more.

I'm not seeing anything disturbing on FB, but I went on a block-fest after the Paula Deen fiasco. If only racism were easier to deal with IRL...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh...... But HAD there been a trial, Wilson would not (should not) have been on trial for racism.  He would've been charged with murder or involuntary manslaughter. 

 

Besides, I still don't see how it's racism to confront (verbally, not physically) a man who fits the description of the thief that was just broadcast over police radio.

 

 

 

 

Dh and I discussed the # of times Wilson fired.  It sounded to us like initially, Brown approached Wilson's car with Wilson still inside, physically confronted him (beating him in the face), and Wilson tried to warn him to back off by shooting twice inside the car at first.  Then he shot outside the window, grazing his hand, because Wilson wouldn't back off.  And so forth.  So it sounded to us like he was probably firing multiple warning shots before one of the bullets killed him.  (And we don't yet know ALL the details of what happened between Point A and Point B.... but the evidence does at least seem clear that Brown physically attacked Wilson while Wilson was still inside the car.  If it was me, and I had a gun or any other kind of weapon on me, you bet I'd be firing at him, too!  And THAT has got NOTHING to do with color!)

 

 

 

 

 

How about a world where young black men don't antagonize a police officer just because he's white, almost DARING him to shoot?  You don't think that happens, too?  Especially if said young man has drugs in his system and just committed a crime? 

 

But...he didn't know about the robbery when he confronted Brown at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So violence is the solution? Looting and vandalizing local businesses, and setting cars and a building on fire is justified?

 

Peaceful protests are one thing. Rioting is another.

An answer? No. Justified? No. A predictable enough reaction? Unfortunately, yes. Violence can not stop violence but violence also breeds violence.

 

I have 2 nephews who are not, and I doubt ever will be, treated as my sons are by many people in power. I'm not even their mother but the fear I feel for them is real, very very real. I saw it with my brother up close and personal. It is a tragedy of epic proportions that my sons are safer than their cousins on account of their skin color. You can not tell me that the discrepancy has nothing to do with the fact that my sons are lily white with straight brown hair and light eyes and my nephews are brown skinned with AA hair and dark eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh...... But HAD there been a trial, Wilson would not (should not) have been on trial for racism.  He would've been charged with murder or involuntary manslaughter. 

 

Besides, I still don't see how it's racism to confront (verbally, not physically) a man who fits the description of the thief that was just broadcast over police radio.

 

Of course he would be on trial for murder or manslaughter. But, again, my point is that we should not be dismissive, as you were up thread that there was no racism at play. I think there's a danger in that because clearly there is a great deal of racism in the context of the encounter. And since that context is there, it's incumbent on the officer to deescalate the situation, to confront in ways that are not threatening and assuming violent outcomes from the start.

 

 

 

How about a world where young black men don't antagonize a police officer just because he's white, almost DARING him to shoot?  You don't think that happens, too?  Especially if said young man has drugs in his system and just committed a crime? 

 

Who had the power there? Who ended up dead?

 

I want police who are better than a dummy who takes a dare. They have a tough, tough job. But I want police who deescalate, who don't shoot to kill even if someone is daring them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh...... But HAD there been a trial, Wilson would not (should not) have been on trial for racism.  He would've been charged with murder or involuntary manslaughter. 

 

Besides, I still don't see how it's racism to confront (verbally, not physically) a man who fits the description of the thief that was just broadcast over police radio.

 

 

 

 

Dh and I discussed the # of times Wilson fired.  It sounded to us like initially, Brown approached Wilson's car with Wilson still inside, physically confronted him (beating him in the face), and Wilson tried to warn him to back off by shooting twice inside the car at first.  Then he shot outside the window, grazing his hand, because Wilson wouldn't back off.  And so forth.  So it sounded to us like he was probably firing multiple warning shots before one of the bullets killed him.  (And we don't yet know ALL the details of what happened between Point A and Point B.... but the evidence does at least seem clear that Brown physically attacked Wilson while Wilson was still inside the car.  If it was me, and I had a gun or any other kind of weapon on me, you bet I'd be firing at him, too!  And THAT has got NOTHING to do with color!)

 

 

 

 

 

How about a world where young black men don't antagonize a police officer just because he's white, almost DARING him to shoot?  You don't think that happens, too?  Especially if said young man has drugs in his system and just committed a crime? 

 

I can't believe you really think this happens more than white officers/men antagonizes black men. In the early 90s a young black boy wouldn't even come in our home because he didn't know if we allowed black people inside. My dad saw him sitting outside, found out why, and was beyond angry. He brought that young man inside and later made me (and the rest of my siblings) promise to let him know if/when we found out about those who had a problem with it because he wanted to have a word.

 

A few weeks ago my dh, dds, and I listened to a young mom in a restaurant try to find out where here young boys were picking up bad language. When they wouldn't tell her, she asked, "Is it from the black boys on your football team?". We were all disgusted and unfortunately it doesn't end there.

 

These things are all around us if we choose to see them and I believe they are much more prevalent that your scenario. I'm not saying your scenario never happens but the opposite happens way more.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How about a world where young black men don't antagonize a police officer just because he's white, almost DARING him to shoot?  You don't think that happens, too?  Especially if said young man has drugs in his system and just committed a crime? 

 

I wasn't going to comment but this quote is amazing on so many levels.  I am going to assume that you are not black because if you were, you would know that black and brown kids for generations are taught not engage in any way with police officers.  I live in a predominately white neighborhood and every time we see a police officer, we do not engage in any way.  My kids know not to even say hi unless they say hi first.  That is the reality that I live in and the reality that many black/brown families live in.  This is called survival.  So no, this hypothetical world of your doesn't exist for the majority of black/brown kids.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-international-releases-new-ferguson-report-documenting-human-rights-abuses

 

 

 

Today, the human rights organization has released a new report, On the Streets of America: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson,documenting the human rights concerns witnessed first-hand by Amnesty International while in Ferguson from August 14-22, 2014. The report also outlines a series of recommendations that need to be implemented with regards to the use of force by law enforcement officers and the policing of protests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mrs Mungo that this reflects the larger problem of shooting laws in general. "Feeling threatened" is far too subjective to be a legal defense.

Exactly. I've felt threatened a lot of times in my life. I've BEEN threatened a lot of times in my life. And I've snapped and even hit back. But I've never KILLED anyone. Deadly force is not a reasonable reaction to most types of scary situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I want police who are better than a dummy who takes a dare. They have a tough, tough job. But I want police who deescalate, who don't shoot to kill even if someone is daring them to.

 

Just so!!

 

Orthogonal to the current issue, but here is a post with video's of American's and Brits dealing with mentally ill folks with weapons... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/06/1342660/-Two-drastically-different-ways-police-can-subdue-a-man-armed-with-a-knife

 

Here you have a corpse; in England you have a suspect who can be tried or referred to mental health as needed.

 

If the British approach was used in Ferguson, would Michael Brown be dead?

 

'Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...he didn't know about the robbery when he confronted Brown at first.

 

I thought he went to the location BECAUSE of the call about the robbery, and saw someone who matched the description of red hat, yellow socks, carrying items similar to what were reported stolen.  So, yes, he knew about the robbery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought he went to the location BECAUSE of the call about the robbery, and saw someone who matched the description of red hat, yellow socks, carrying items similar to what were reported stolen.  So, yes, he knew about the robbery.

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/

 

 

 

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson -- hours after documents came out labeling the 18-year-old Brown as the "primary suspect" in the store theft -- told reporters the "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read all of the responses.  I am personally affected by this as I live about 10 minutes away from Ferguson. 

As I am sitting here watching the tv coverage and watching the fires and the looting, I am just sickened.  I have 4 dc and their families coming into town from 4 different areas.  Some are driving very long distances, the farthest being over 24 hours away.  It will be the first time in a few years all 10 of my dc and grandchildren will all be together.  Now I am concerned and will have to see if things calm down tomorrow to see if we should advise them not to come.  We have planned this weekend for the past 6 months.  Peaceful protests are certainly everyone's constitutional right, but this is far from peaceful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which version of events? What is the evidence that he was attacked? A lot of wrong information has been put out in the media. Even the POLICE version of events states that Brown was unarmed and *running away* when he was shot at least six times *from a distance*. Recently released video shows Wilson without serious injury to his face despite leaks to the media that his eye socket had been broken.

 

 

No, that was not Officer Wilson's account of the incident, and the forensic evidence backed his story (as did statements from other witnesses).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read all of the responses.  I am personally affected by this as I live about 10 minutes away from Ferguson. 

As I am sitting here watching the tv coverage and watching the fires and the looting, I am just sickened.  I have 4 dc and their families coming into town from 4 different areas.  Some are driving very long distances, the farthest being over 24 hours away.  It will be the first time in a few years all 10 of my dc and grandchildren will all be together.  Now I am concerned and will have to see if things calm down tomorrow to see if we should advise them not to come.  We have planned this weekend for the past 6 months.  Peaceful protests are certainly everyone's constitutional right, but this is far from peaceful.

 

I'm sorry Jay Nixon and Robert McCulloch have ruined your Thanksgiving. I don't think the timing of this is coincidental. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grand jury saw the evidence and the facts. A lot may have conflicted itself, but they spent way more time on it than the usual grand jury. They felt there was not enough evidence to take to trial..which means..not enough evidence to show any  possible guilt on behalf of the officer. They do not just send to trial if they think the person is guilty, they send to trial if they think there is a chance of guilt. The mobs out there killing people and destroying property and making life dangerous for everyone there-what are they? They are not looking at the evidence..and they are proving themselves to not be reasonable people. I am not going to look at angry mobs doing what they are doing and take them seriously over a grand jury that spent so much time looking at real evidence and listening to witnesses and pondering over this decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to say that if I had any question about racism still being alive and well here that a few on my FB feed right now would show me how wrong I am. It makes me so sad that seemingly normal people don't realize how horrible they really are. My friends list is down a few now and my heart hurts.

I posted this quote on my facebook. I haven't had to delete anyone, but I do have quite a few people hidden from my feed.

 

"God always takes his stand unconditionally and passionately on this side [of the 'oppressed poor, widows, orphans, and aliens'] and on this side alone: against the lofty and on behalf of the lowly; against those who already enjoy right and privilege and on behalf of those who are denied it and deprived of it….The Command of God is a call for the championing of the weak against every kind of encroachment on the part of the strong."

 

-- K. Barth, CD II.1, 386

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read all of the responses.  I am personally affected by this as I live about 10 minutes away from Ferguson. 

As I am sitting here watching the tv coverage and watching the fires and the looting, I am just sickened.  I have 4 dc and their families coming into town from 4 different areas.  Some are driving very long distances, the farthest being over 24 hours away.  It will be the first time in a few years all 10 of my dc and grandchildren will all be together.  Now I am concerned and will have to see if things calm down tomorrow to see if we should advise them not to come.  We have planned this weekend for the past 6 months.  Peaceful protests are certainly everyone's constitutional right, but this is far from peaceful.

 

I'm very sorry, Teresa.  :grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really good article, IMHO  http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7175967/darren-wilson-charges-michael-brown-ferguson

 

"Alex Little, a former federal prosecutor who spent six years trying violent crimes, including homicides, told Vox's Amanda Taub in August that the strategy raised concerns about McCulloch's commitment to seeking justice in the case:

 

So when a District Attorney says, in effect, "we'll present the evidence and let the grand jury decide," that's malarkey. If he takes that approach, then he's already decided to abdicate his role in the process as an advocate for justice. At that point, there's no longer a prosecutor in the room guiding the grand jurors, and — more importantly — no state official acting on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown. 

 

Then, when you add to the mix that minorities are notoriously underrepresented on grand juries, you have the potential for nullification — of a grand jury declining to bring charges even when there is sufficient probable cause. That's the real danger to this approach."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think changing how criminals interact with their community and the police would help prevent these shootings.

What a complete and utter lie. Go back up and look at the two links I posted up thread about the cop shooting in SC. That guy is lucky everything was on tape and that there was no crime in the area that the cop could have "been investigating."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Okay, got it.  The first time he saw him (while responding to the robbery call) he just saw him as a guy walking down the street stopping traffic.  After that he realized he matched the description.  I missed that bit before.

 

All the evidence has been released, as someone else pointed out upthread. I saw it on the newspaper website:  http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/the-testimony-the-grand-jury-heard-in-the-michael-brown/html_47d95368-a8f2-5ae1-9173-6653c15d0f0e.html

 

KSDK seems to have crashed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I've felt threatened a lot of times in my life. I've BEEN threatened a lot of times in my life. And I've snapped and even hit back. But I've never KILLED anyone. Deadly force is not a reasonable reaction to most types of scary situations.

I have been threatened plenty. You guys know how mouthy I am. I am not much different IRL. If I had shot everyone who had ever made me (as a five foot tall mouthy woman)feel threatened, then I would have shot a shit load of people by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what posters are saying about de-escalation, racism, not using military tactics, deadly force being an absolutely last resort. In hindsight I don't think Michael brown should have been killed (from the info I know). However, I don't think Wilson just randomly killed him. How does Wilson going to jail help anything (race relations, police tactics, etc)? Is it just that people want an open/more fair trial? I feel like we will never really know what exactly transpired and why Wilson felt like he needed to shoot (even with an open trial). I guess I don't see how charging him actually helps Michael browns family or ferguson.

 

As to his not mentioning Michael brown in the statement, I would bet money that his lawyers wrote it word for word, so I don't think it speaks to his character or thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wa Po has Dramatic graphic on how rare it is for grand juries to not indict

 

Having prob lining to it as I'm mobile but will try again in a minute

 

http://wapo.st/1vHOVpq

 

I'd love to see graphs on how unusual it is when the DA does what this guy did.  Basically not advocate for the victim and for justice...and let the jury drown in a sea of evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovinmyboys,

 

Nobody thinks Wilson randomly shot Brown. People think there is an underlying type of racism that made Wilson stop Brown in the first place, that made him get more belligerent with Brown than he would with someone like my white, military bearing, middle aged husband, that made Wilson perceive an injured Brown as enough of a threat that Wilson shot him from a distance to protect himself.

 

I am going to quote myself and ask you, do you believe that race played a part in the shooting below or not? Do you believe the cop would have got off for reasons similar to Wilson, if we did not have the incident on tape?

 

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

I agree with what posters are saying about de-escalation, racism, not using military tactics, deadly force being an absolutely last resort. In hindsight I don't think Michael brown should have been killed (from the info I know). However, I don't think Wilson just randomly killed him. How does Wilson going to jail help anything (race relations, police tactics, etc)? Is it just that people want an open/more fair trial? I feel like we will never really know what exactly transpired and why Wilson felt like he needed to shoot (even with an open trial). I guess I don't see how charging him actually helps Michael browns family or ferguson.

 

As to his not mentioning Michael brown in the statement, I would bet money that his lawyers wrote it word for word, so I don't think it speaks to his character or thoughts.

 

It helps because for once the black guy gets justice for being wrongly killed by a cop.  That gives others hope that their rights matter too.  That justice for them is important too.

 

Do I think he should have gone away for life if found guilty? Nope.  But even a 2 year sentence would have been better than nothing IMHO.  It would have been something to say that black lives matter too.  That you can't just shoot an unarmed black man just because he's black and you're a cop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Jay Nixon and Robert McCulloch have ruined your Thanksgiving. I don't think the timing of this is coincidental. 

 

I don't think so either.  However, I do think it's a positive for some of the kids who live in certain school districts.  Some have already had to miss quite a bit of school because of this, and having this come out Thanksgiving week means they're theoretically not missing quite so much now.  (Schools and libraries closed before the decision was even announced -- I've no clue if people who don't live here are aware of that, so sorry if I'm stating the obvious.)

 

OTOH, my college freshman will be driving home tomorrow, delivering classmates to the airport on her way.  I wonder if the airport will be a protest site ....   So, you know, it's a mixed bag of good and bad.  Dd said she saw a report that dh's workplace is being vandalized. Early holiday break?  

 

I'm descending into gallows humor, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a world where young black men don't antagonize a police officer just because he's white, almost DARING him to shoot?  You don't think that happens, too?  Especially if said young man has drugs in his system and just committed a crime? 

 

How often do you really think this happens? I'm African American - and suffice it to say, I know a wide range of African Americans, young and old. I am having a hard time coming up with anyone who I could imagine doing this, including people that I think are a bit mouthy, or a bit of a showboat or a hothead in civilian situations -- self-preservation and all in the face of authority.  In what percentage of situations in which a white law enforcement officer interacts with a young black man do you think it's likely that the young man dared the cop to shoot?  And even if they did, are you suggesting that officers -- on a punk-faced dare -- should take the bait and actually shoot?  And would you want that to be applied across the board so as to be fair and impartial or only if the cop "just didn't like the person"? And if  "just not liking the person" began to become a pattern based on -- let's just say "race" -- where some of the antagonists lived/were less likely to be shot (as would be the case of the white man in New Orleans who antagonized police - while pointing a gun at three of them mind you -- with the clearly antagonisic words "No you put your __________ gun down!" and lived!)  and others did not, at what point would you then seek out a broader investigation of whether that policy should continue? You really want a law enforcement and justice system based on that? Excuse me while I shudder for just a few minutes. 

 

I actually don't think that's what you are saying. And even if it is, the number of times in which a young black man, faced in a situation like this with a cop, is likely to get all "death-wishy" I would imagine would be rare indeed. If anything, as the quoted below, the vast majority of African Americans are pretty careful about instructing their children to not engage. They love and care about the safety and well-being of their children as much as you do. And the young people themselves, actually - I don't know -- have the same basic sense of self-preservation that you and your children have for yourselves. Please tell me you believe that to be true. You really don't have to wish for a world in which broad-scale antagonism of cops -- such as that to escalate into drawing of guns -- doesn't exist. It really doesn't exist in all but the rarest of cases. 

 

 

I wasn't going to comment but this quote is amazing on so many levels.  I am going to assume that you are not black because if you were, you would know that black and brown kids for generations are taught not engage in any way with police officers.  I live in a predominately white neighborhood and every time we see a police officer, we do not engage in any way.  My kids know not to even say hi unless they say hi first.  That is the reality that I live in and the reality that many black/brown families live in.  This is called survival.  So no, this hypothetical world of your doesn't exist for the majority of black/brown kids.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see graphs on how unusual it is when the DA does what this guy did.  Basically not advocate for the victim and for justice...and let the jury drown in a sea of evidence. 

 

I think it is quite possible that the prosecutor felt the shooting was justified and there was no reason to bring charges, and based on the summary of the evidence I think it is possible that he was correct.  Had this case not been the center of controversy he likely would not have pursued a grand jury indictment.  Due to the scrutiny he instead put everything in front of the grand jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grand jury saw the evidence and the facts. A lot may have conflicted itself, but they spent way more time on it than the usual grand jury. They felt there was not enough evidence to take to trial..which means..not enough evidence to show any  possible guilt on behalf of the officer. They do not just send to trial if they think the person is guilty, they send to trial if they think there is a chance of guilt. The mobs out there killing people and destroying property and making life dangerous for everyone there-what are they? They are not looking at the evidence..and they are proving themselves to not be reasonable people. I am not going to look at angry mobs doing what they are doing and take them seriously over a grand jury that spent so much time looking at real evidence and listening to witnesses and pondering over this decision.

 

FTR, no mobs have been out killing anyone and 99% of those protesting are either acting lawfully or engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...