Ferguson

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.  

 

Query: can you shoot a 300 lb man who tried to take your weapon during the altercation and is now charging you?  That is what Wilson claimed happened, and the forensics and at least some witnesses backed his story.

 

Arguing that he simply gunned down an unarmed man is being disingenuous.

[Laurie4b]

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.

 

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

 

I have watched so many videos of police shootings in which the police escalated the situation by their behavior then shot someone behaving predictably in response. Coming from a mental health background in which I worked with violent juveniles, sometimes in their home settings with no back-up around, I can tell you that what police typically do is the opposite of what I was trained to do. And yes, I was sometimes in physical danger and I had no weapons. Here I am, alive and well. Calm, respectful behavior.... retreating when necessary. That actually works.

 

There are some videos on youtube of British officers interacting with men with machetes in situations in which the protocal in the US would be for the officers to shoot to kill because the men with the machetes lunged at them. What did the UK police do? Backed off out of reach, until they were able to take them down. Nobody killed.

[Laurie4b]

This thread makes me so sad.

[Tsuga]

The whole thing is so tragic. So tragic. I don't feel sorry for the cop, but I do see how that instinct can kick in. In Seattle the cops have stopped going after so many petty crimes to avoid interactions like this. It's a problem that we have in our country that has its roots in slavery and it simply will not go away just by pretending that we all became color blind as soon as slavery ended. We didn't. Nobody is color blind, and nobody knows what they would do if they were facing criminals on a daily basis. Nobody knows.

 

I wish strength to all involved in peaceful protests.

[umsami]

Query: can you shoot a 300 lb man who tried to take your weapon during the altercation and is now charging you?  That is what Wilson claimed happened, and the forensics and at least some witnesses backed his story.

 

Arguing that he simply gunned down an unarmed man is being disingenuous.

 

I tried to access the new site with the reports, and it was having difficulty.  I have not seen all of the forensic evidence, but I'll track down the autopsy reports now.

 

He was unarmed.  He was walking across the street.  The police chief originally said he was originally stopped for jaywalking.  Michael Brown did not have a gun period.

 

He was shot six times.   SIX!  The forensics also show that the fatal shots were two to the top of his head.  

 

At least one of the shots were fired at close range....suggesting they may have struggled.  

 

I'm sorry....but six times?  Six times.  Only one shot at close range...to his thumb (so yes, maybe an altercation/reaching for the gun).  But five others...and not at close range?  Obviously Wilson had the gun....Brown did not...so why those five other shots fired at this man? Two in the top of the head at an angle where it appears Brown was on his knees.  At minimum, he used far more deadly force than necessary to stop an unarmed man...300 pounds or not.  One shot would have done it.  Six was not required.  Michael Brown should not have been killed.  Wilson over-reacted.  Brown was executed by Wilson.  

[lovinmyboys]

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?

 

 

I shouldn't have used the word random..it isn't what I meant. Like I said, I agree with the posters who said the entire situation should have been handled better. I can't say for sure if it was handled that way because Brown was black, but I think it is a reasonable assumption. My point was that I don't understand how Wilson being punished helps anything. But I am not big on punishment in general. Wilson will definitely have consequences...it isn't like his life is going on all peachy. Punishing him further doesn't bring Michael brown back.

 

Race definitely plays a factor in some unwarranted police shootings. But, it isn't always about race. An unarmed white teenage girl was fatally shot by a cop in my town earlier this year. The grand jury in that case just came back this month and found that the cop would not face trial. From the info I know, there was at least as much evidence that my hometown cop should have gone to trial as there is that Wilson should have. It's pretty difficult to prove an officer shooting was criminal. (I don't share that story to downplay the racial element in ferguson. It's just the story people are talking about around me and it happened around the same time.)

[umsami]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Granted it's Federal vs. State...but still, the numbers are staggering.

 

"Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.†The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I tried to access the new site with the reports, and it was having difficulty.  I have not seen all of the forensic evidence, but I'll track down the autopsy reports now.

 

He was unarmed.  He was walking across the street.  The police chief originally said he was originally stopped for jaywalking.  Michael Brown did not have a gun period.

 

He was shot six times.   SIX!  The forensics also show that the fatal shots were two to the top of his head.  

 

At least one of the shots were fired at close range....suggesting they may have struggled.  

 

I'm sorry....but six times?  Six times.  Only one shot at close range...to his thumb (so yes, maybe an altercation/reaching for the gun).  But five others...and not at close range?  Obviously Wilson had the gun....Brown did not...so why those five other shots fired at this man? Two in the top of the head at an angle where it appears Brown was on his knees.  At minimum, he used far more deadly force than necessary to stop an unarmed man...300 pounds or not.  One shot would have done it.  Six was not required.  Michael Brown should not have been killed.  Wilson over-reacted.  Brown was executed by Wilson.  

 

So you really don't know much about what evidence was available but you are able to make a judgement that Wilson is guilty?

And several of your statements are factually incorrect based on the forensics.

[Word Nerd]

Never mind! I misread and was talking about something else. Time for bed.

[lovinmyboys]

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

 

I have watched so many videos of police shootings in which the police escalated the situation by their behavior then shot someone behaving predictably in response. Coming from a mental health background in which I worked with violent juveniles, sometimes in their home settings with no back-up around, I can tell you that what police typically do is the opposite of what I was trained to do. And yes, I was sometimes in physical danger and I had no weapons. Here I am, alive and well. Calm, respectful behavior.... retreating when necessary. That actually works.

 

There are some videos on youtube of British officers interacting with men with machetes in situations in which the protocal in the US would be for the officers to shoot to kill because the men with the machetes lunged at them. What did the UK police do? Backed off out of reach, until they were able to take them down. Nobody killed.

I want to make it clear that I pretty much agree with this. However, you are not charged with protecting a community. When you are able to retreat, police officers may not be able to. Sometimes it is impossible to de-escalate a situation (although that should always be the goal).

 

I don't know if this makes sense or not, but I fully believe in de escalation and am in general non punitive in my parenting. My neruotypical 4yr old will occasionally get into situations that I cannot de escalate (I don't have mental health training and perhaps don't have all the tools). Today he was lightly hitting his brother in the face during lunch (to pester not hurt). Anyway, he just kept it up and was not interested in any solution other than tapping his brothers cheek. I physically removed him from the situation, but he continued to make really bad choices. My point is that he was in a relatively good mood and the situation escalated so quickly. A relatively minor offense turned into big offenses. I couldn't retreat because his brothers right to not have his face tapped is my concern (we sorted it out without violence, ftr). My point is, police officers get in similar situations. Somehow, this situation escalated from someone waking in the street to someone being killed. It is a horribly sad situation, but sometimes it takes two to de escalate. I fully believe that police officers need to be trained to de escalate, but I can't say without a doubt that Wilson didn't use all the tools he had to do that. Maybe he needed more tools, but it doesn't make him a criminal.

 

ETA: I want to make it clear I don't equate a parent/4 yr old relationship with community member/police relationship. Just this morning I was thinking that Wilson should have handled the whole situation better and this wouldn't have happened. Then I had lunchtime with my 4yr old and it hit me that Wilson may have done his best (I have no idea). Sometimes you do your best and your best just does not get cooperation and the situation spirals downward.

[poppy]

So you really don't know much about what evidence was available but you are able to make a judgement that Wilson is guilty?

And several of your statements are factually incorrect based on the forensics.

 

There is a difference between saying 'this guy is definitely guilty' and saying 'there should be  a trial". 

 

No trial at all for a shooting resulting in someone dying, when some eyewitnesses say it was not justified, is staggeringly odd.

[Slartibartfast]

So you really don't know much about what evidence was available but you are able to make a judgement that Wilson is guilty?

And several of your statements are factually incorrect based on the forensics.

 

Which of her statements are incorrect?

[Slartibartfast]

There is a difference between saying 'this guy is definitely guilty' and saying 'there should be  a trial". 

 

No trial at all for a shooting resulting in someone dying, when some eyewitnesses say it was not justified, is staggeringly odd.

 

 

Exactly, this wasn't a trial this was an indictment. This is not a "not guilty."

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There is a difference between saying 'this guy is definitely guilty' and saying 'there should be  a trial". 

 

No trial at all for a shooting resulting in someone dying, when some eyewitnesses say it was not justified, is staggeringly odd.

 

Unless those during the investigation those eyewitnesses are found to be unreliable, particularly if their statements change (apparently some did) or do match the forensics (which was what is reported by the prosecutor).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Which of her statements are incorrect?

 

About the gunshots being at an angle indicating he was in his knees.  That isn't what the forensics indicated.

[poppy]

Unless those during the investigation those eyewitnesses are found to be unreliable, particularly if their statements change (apparently some did) or do match the forensics (which was what is reported by the prosecutor).

'Some did' .... Sounds like a good question to delve into at a trial.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

'Some did' .... Sounds like a good question to delve into at a trial.

Not if the prosecution doesn't find them credible. It is not unusual for charges to be brought even with "eyewitness" testimony if the prosecutor doesn't believe the evidence indicates a crime was committed.

[OneStepAtATime]

I just hope and pray that no one is injured or killed over this tonight.  DH is in a hotel near the scene of some violence that occurred this evening because of the situation.  He, too, is hoping no one gets hurt or killed.  

[PeacefulChaos]

I really don't have strong feelings on this.  

I wasn't there.  I don't have access to all the facts, conflicting or not, and I can't make judgments based on it.

I'm very sorry a young man died.  I can only hope that the justice system did what was best in this circumstance.  

I hope that no violence breaks out from this decision.  I can honestly say I don't understand what the point of violence would be.  

Naive? Maybe.  But I'm okay with that.

[Tammi K]

Grand Jury decision aside, someone help me understand how relations between residents and police are supposed to improve by looting and arson. 

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Like I said, I agree with the posters who said the entire situation should have been handled better. I can't say for sure if it was handled that way because Brown was black, but I think it is a reasonable assumption. My point was that I don't understand how Wilson being punished helps anything. But I am not big on punishment in general. Wilson will definitely have consequences...it isn't like his life is going on all peachy. Punishing him further doesn't bring Michael brown back.

This had nothing to do with punishment, only a trial.

 

 

Race definitely plays a factor in some unwarranted police shootings. But, it isn't always about race. An unarmed white teenage girl was fatally shot by a cop in my town earlier this year. The grand jury in that case just came back this month and found that the cop would not face trial. From the info I know, there was at least as much evidence that my hometown cop should have gone to trial as there is that Wilson should have. It's pretty difficult to prove an officer shooting was criminal. (I don't share that story to downplay the racial element in ferguson. It's just the story people are talking about around me and it happened around the same time.)

This is incredibly dismissive and *does* serve as an attempt to downplay the race factor in a case where statistics show that race plays a significant factor in the relationship an entire group has with the police in Ferguson.

 

 

 

I want to make it clear that I pretty much agree with this. However, you are not charged with protecting a community. When you are able to retreat, police officers may not be able to. Sometimes it is impossible to de-escalate a situation (although that should always be the goal).

My dh is a military officer. He has repeatedly been overseas. THEY are supposed to try to deescalate certain situations. The military has rules about under what circumstances they can fire their weapons. If they break those rules, then they can be prosecuted. WHY should we allow more leeway for police officers acting against our own citizens?

 

There is even a fairly well known video of a US commander having his soldiers take a knee in order to deescalate a particular situation (with a handful of soldiers versus hundreds of protestors). I can't find it right now, too many hits with similar search terms, but here is the story from an embedded reporter:

 

. . .a convoy Col. Hodges was traveling in was ambushed by several Iraqi paramilitary soldiers. A ferocious firefight ensued, but Hodges never left the side of his vehicle. Puffing on a cigar as he directed the action, Hodges remained constantly exposed to fire. When two Kiowa helicopters swooped in to pulverize the enemy strongpoint with rocket fire, he turned to some journalists watching the action and quipped, "That's your tax dollars at work."

 

Bravery inspires men, but brains and quick thinking win wars. In one particularly tense moment, a company of U.S. soldiers was preparing to guard the Mosque of Ali -- one of the most sacred Muslim sites -- when agitators in what had been a friendly crowd started shouting that they were going to storm the mosque. In an instant, the Iraqis began to chant and a riot seemed imminent. A couple of nervous soldiers slid their weapons into fire mode, and I thought we were only moments away from a slaughter. These soldiers had just fought an all-night battle. They were exhausted, tense, and prepared to crush any riot with violence of their own. But they were also professionals, and so, when their battalion commander, Chris Hughes, ordered them to take a knee, point their weapons to the ground, and start smiling, that is exactly what they did. Calm returned. By placing his men in the most non-threatening posture possible, Hughes had sapped the crowd of its aggression. Quick thinking and iron discipline had reversed an ugly situation and averted disaster.

http://www.jeffhead.com/iraqifreedom/menwhowonthewar.htm

 

Oh wait, here is the video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-calm-colonels-strategic-victory/

 

ETA: I'd really like to hear your thoughts with regard to my questions about the links to the SC police shooting articles. Here's another link with both videos and a little more info:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/listen_sc_cop_who_shot_man_while_reaching_for_his_wallet_tells_his_side.html

[MrsBasil]

This had nothing to do with punishment, only a trial.

 

 

This is incredibly dismissive and *does* serve as an attempt to downplay the race factor in a case where statistics show that race plays a significant factor in the relationship an entire group has with the police in Ferguson.

 

 

 

My dh is a military officer. He has repeatedly been overseas. THEY are supposed to try to deescalate certain situations. The military has rules about under what circumstances they can fire their weapons. If they break those rules, then they can be prosecuted. WHY should we allow more leeway for police officers acting against our own citizens?

 

There is even a fairly well known video of a US commander having his soldiers take a knee in order to deescalate a particular situation (with a handful of soldiers versus hundreds of protestors). I can't find it right now, too many hits with similar search terms, but here is the story from an embedded reporter:

http://www.jeffhead.com/iraqifreedom/menwhowonthewar.htm

 

Oh wait, here is the video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-calm-colonels-strategic-victory/

 

ETA: I'd really like to hear your thoughts with regard to my questions about the links to the SC police shooting articles.

 

I've never seen anything like that video, thanks for sharing.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

I've never seen anything like that video, thanks for sharing.

The contrast with these videos is stunning:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/listen_sc_cop_who_shot_man_while_reaching_for_his_wallet_tells_his_side.html

 

Calling these types of police actions "militaristic" is a misnomer because this behavior would not be tolerated in the military. If you are THAT jumpy, they don't want you to have a weapon.

 

ETA: Basically, I'm saying here that part of the problem (which is BY FAR not the whole problem) is a militarization of police forces *without* the appropriate military training on how to act within a civilian population, without strict rules about when to use various levels of force. That is a recipe for disaster, chaos, oppression and rebellion.

[OneStepAtATime]

The contrast with these videos is stunning:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/listen_sc_cop_who_shot_man_while_reaching_for_his_wallet_tells_his_side.html

 

Calling these types of police actions "militaristic" is a misnomer because this behavior would not be tolerated in the military. If you are THAT jumpy, they don't want you to have a weapon.

This video was scary.  I agree.  The cop was so jumpy he is a danger to others.  That man could easily have been killed.  How terrifying!  I do genuinely believe the police officer felt he was in danger.   He seemed to almost panic when the man reached into his car.   And how sad that he did almost panic since it does imply an almost subconscious racial stereotyping.  The man was doing as he had been asked.  He was trying to comply.  The officer seemed to completely misinterpret the man's movements.

[Mrs Mungo]

This video was scary.  I agree.  The cop was so jumpy he is a danger to others.  That man could easily have been killed.  How terrifying!  I do genuinely believe the police officer felt he was in danger.   He seemed to almost panic when the man reached into his car.   And how sad that he did almost panic since it does imply an almost subconscious racial stereotyping.  The man was doing as he had been asked.  He was trying to comply.  The officer seemed to completely misinterpret the man's movements.

He didn't *almost* panic, he *did* panic and fired his weapon! That is CRAZY. The video showing his interpretation of events is equally crazy.

[Renee in NC]

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.

 

I brought this case up to my children last night when discussing what was going on in Ferguson.

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/01/27/4643483/judge-denies-effort-to-block-grand.html

[Renee in NC]

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

 

I have watched so many videos of police shootings in which the police escalated the situation by their behavior then shot someone behaving predictably in response. Coming from a mental health background in which I worked with violent juveniles, sometimes in their home settings with no back-up around, I can tell you that what police typically do is the opposite of what I was trained to do. And yes, I was sometimes in physical danger and I had no weapons. Here I am, alive and well. Calm, respectful behavior.... retreating when necessary. That actually works.

 

There are some videos on youtube of British officers interacting with men with machetes in situations in which the protocal in the US would be for the officers to shoot to kill because the men with the machetes lunged at them. What did the UK police do? Backed off out of reach, until they were able to take them down. Nobody killed.

 

I will agree that some cops are too ready to fight.  My best friend is a cop, and he will tell you that he has had 4 fights in 13 years, and he has never pulled his weapon as a cop.  He has a very commanding, intimnidating presence, and he is good at talking people out of being stupid.  He has the reputation of being an SOB, but a fair SOB.  He leaves his house every morning knowing he could be killed or have to kill someone, and he says a prayer everyday that it doesn't happen.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

This thread can stay open AS LONG AS YOU KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE PERSONAL COMMENTS. It's an important topic. DISCUSS IT WITHOUT JUMPING DOWN EACH OTHER'S THROATS. Yes, I'm shouting.

 

SWB

[lulubelle]

I listened to the attorney general speak on tv. He said Wilson was on alert for two suspects that stole items from a store, wearing specific clothing. Brown was wearing similar clothing. It was not a random stop about crossing the street. He also stated that Brown was not shot from behind. Why is this still being said as the exact opposite?

[SporkUK]

Because previous reports by the police and Wilson himself said that he wasn't aware of the theft until AFTER he stopped and shot Michael Brown. Because Wilson didn't put in a report of stopping or shooting (as required by law) and the later report filed on the robbery had the time event of the police speaking to them as afterwards. Because the previous events as stated by the police have been repeatedly rescinded as lies. 

 

And last I checked, the punishment for stealing anything isn't being shot and left in the street for 4 hours. This was beyond stopping someone for jaywalking or theft. It was a message to the community and for that Wilson has been on paid leave. 

[umsami]

So you really don't know much about what evidence was available but you are able to make a judgement that Wilson is guilty?

And several of your statements are factually incorrect based on the forensics.

 

I based all of my statements based on the autopsy reports which were available.  If you read this article, it will link you to the official autopsy report as well as an interview with the pathologist.  It also links to one of the independent autopsy reports commissioned by the family.

 

What was incorrect about anything I said?

 

I never said he was guilty.  But there is enough evidence...heck, the fact that the kid was shot six times and was unarmed, for there to have been probable cause for an indictment and for this to move to a trial.  You don't think there was enough for a real trial?  Really?

 

Officer Wilson did not need to shoot Michael Brown three times in the body (I'll ignore the thumb one at close range), plus twice in the head to stop an unarmed man.   

 

There was probably cause for an indictment.  The way that the DA handled the case, not advocating for the victim or even putting on a case, was extremely unusual...numerous prosecuting attorneys have said the same.  The fact that the DA has a questionable family history and did not recuse himself is extremely unusual.  There should have been an indictment and a "real" trial.

[umsami]

I listened to the attorney general speak on tv. He said Wilson was on alert for two suspects that stole items from a store, wearing specific clothing. Brown was wearing similar clothing. It was not a random stop about crossing the street. He also stated that Brown was not shot from behind. Why is this still being said as the exact opposite?

 

Because the police's story has changed.  When it first happened, the chief of police said he was stopped for jaywalking.

 

"But Darren Wilson, the officer who stopped Brown, wasn’t even aware that Brown was a suspect in the robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday afternoon. The officer initially stopped Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, because the pair was walking in the middle of a residential street, Jackson said, an admission that provoked outrage from Brown’s family and attorneys."

 

Witnesses statements are thrown out for not being consistent...shouldn't, at minimum, the same standard apply to the chief of police? It would in a real trial.  In this situation, nobody was advocating for the defendant or for justice.  The more I read the more of a farce it was.

 

The fact that the two were stopped for jaywalking is part of the systemic racism in this case.

[creekland]

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.

 

:iagree:  I really, really feel for all the businesses in that area and any other getting spillover from this.  No matter what one feels about the decision, those business owners (and those who used to work in them, etc) are definitely innocent victims.  I doubt they'll be able to claim insurance either as most insurance policies don't cover riot.

 

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.

 

:grouphug:  I hope it works out for you.

 

I'll admit I'm trusting the system - that the people involved looked at the actual evidence and made their best decision.  Assuming they did, I'm glad they did not fall for the peer pressure to merely keep the peace.  I have not looked at the evidence myself.   I've only heard all the speculation, etc, so I don't feel I'm educated enough (nor could be) to make that final decision.  

[mom@shiloh]

Grand Jury decision aside, someone help me understand how relations between residents and police are supposed to improve by looting and arson. 

 

My thoughts exactly. 

[SporkUK]

Except all the locals are saying that they aren't looting or arson and most local businesses have the same - even the McDonald's has said there was no looting, just people going in groups to get milk to wash out tear gas from their eyes (which has set off in residential areas without protesters as well and at reporters).

 

There are anarchist outsiders who are doing so and have been called out by the community and there are other groups looking to cause trouble. There is a history of such groups, hijacktivists, going to such protests with the intention of violence to make the protests look back. Under President Hoover, he literally sent governments agents to disrupt protests of groups he didn't like and similar has been throughout US history since. That's why watching the livefeeds from protestors has been more eye opening news that what's gone on the news. 

[umsami]

About the gunshots being at an angle indicating he was in his knees.  That isn't what the forensics indicated.

 

OK...let's say it wasn't at that angle.  He was still shot twice in the head.  Three additional times in the body.  All from a distance.  Once in the thumb at close range.

 

"The last two shots were likely the ones to his head, attorney Gray said. One entered the top of his Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when he was struck."

 

That is excessive.  Those very facts are enough for an indictment...given that Mr. Brown was unarmed.  Any good DA would have gotten one...or I should say, any DA who wanted an indictment.  Doesn't matter that he was 300 pounds.  If Officer Wilson cannot disable an unarmed man with six bullets without killing him, he shouldn't be a police officer.  Period.  No need to shoot him twice in the head (which were the lethal blows.)  Wilson executed him.  Mr. Brown deserved his day in court.  He deserved a trial for his murderer.  He didn't get that.

 

How do they go forward? If I were the Ferguson Police Department, I would work a deal with the family.  They admit publicly that in their opinion the amount of force that Officer Wilson used was excessive and not indicitive of his training and how they want their police officers to act when confronting an unarmed criminal.  Officer Wilson is either removed from his job, placed on a desk job, or given more training after a certain period of not being allowed to have a weapon.  They add additional training (who knows, maybe the Brits can help them) on non-lethal ways to subdue a perp.  The agree to a settlement  with the Brown family in lieu of a civil trial.  

 

Any settlement amount will be less than the cost of policing the riots.  It at least gives some form of justice for the Brown family.  It at least says, well, y'know, it's really not OK for police officers to shoot an unarmed black man 5 times.  Police officers, over anybody else, should be trained to use restraint when using deadly force.  I absolutely do hold them to a higher level of responsibility than the average Joe.

 

It's pretty obvious that yes, they do need more training in ways to subdue an offender.  I don't think unarmed people, even if they are thieves, should be killed.  Michael Brown was 18.  He had his whole life ahead of him.

[Sunshine72]

Because the police's story has changed. When it first happened, the chief of police said he was stopped for jaywalking.

 

"But Darren Wilson, the officer who stopped Brown, wasn’t even aware that Brown was a suspect in the robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday afternoon. The officer initially stopped Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, because the pair was walking in the middle of a residential street, Jackson said, an admission that provoked outrage from Brown’s family and attorneys."

 

Witnesses statements are thrown out for not being consistent...shouldn't, at minimum, the same standard apply to the chief of police? It would in a real trial. In this situation, nobody was advocating for the defendant or for justice. The more I read the more of a farce it was.

 

The fact that the two were stopped for jaywalking is part of the systemic racism in this case.

Actually we don't know for a fact that the officers story has changed. That version is what the chief thought happened but may not have been correct. We don't know where he got that info from or if he had even spoken to Officer Wilson at that point. I'm sure the media will read all the grand jury evidence and maybe that will give more insight into their decision. But one has to be open to learning more about their decision rather than just being focused on what was reported earlier in the case.

[umsami]

Actually we don't know for a fact that the officers story has changed. That version is what the chief thought happened but may not have been correct. We don't know where he got that info from or if he had even spoken to Officer Wilson at that point. I'm sure the media will read all the grand jury evidence and maybe that will give more insight into their decision. But one has to be open to learning more about their decision rather than just being focused on what was reported earlier in the case.

 

Doesn't matter.  The Grand Jury's job was not to try Officer Wilson.  There job was whether or not there was probable cause for an indictment.  The fact that unarmed Brown was shot six times is probable enough cause.  Period.

[Sunshine72]

Except all the locals are saying that they aren't looting or arson and most local businesses have the same - even the McDonald's has said there was no looting, just people going in groups to get milk to wash out tear gas from their eyes (which has set off in residential areas without protesters as well and at reporters).

 

There are anarchist outsiders who are doing so and have been called out by the community and there are other groups looking to cause trouble. There is a history of such groups, hijacktivists, going to such protests with the intention of violence to make the protests look back. Under President Hoover, he literally sent governments agents to disrupt protests of groups he didn't like and similar has been throughout US history since. That's why watching the livefeeds from protestors has been more eye opening news that what's gone on the news.

59 of the 61 arrests last night were people from the St. Louis metropolitan area.

[Sunshine72]

Doesn't matter. The Grand Jury's job was not to try Officer Wilson. There job was whether or not there was probable cause for an indictment. The fact that unarmed Brown was shot six times is probable enough cause. Period.

Except it wasn't. Period.

[Mnemosyne]

All I'm going to comment on is.... I'm so glad no one got killed last night. And I really hope that all the poor people whose stores were burned down had full insurance and won't be ruined for what happened. :(

[SporkUK]

And they previously arrested and shot at University professors and clergy outside protesting and caring for people's wounds and injuries. They've literally dumped tear gas into residential back yards before. Who is getting arrested and who is causing damage are not the same, it has never been, why ignore the voices of local businesses and people over the police?. There were literally KKK members and Neo Nazis groups out last night harming protesters, there are videos and photos of it, how many do we think got arrested? Cause I haven't heard of one (not surprising since at least a few of them are also members of the police force).

 

The evidence presented to the Grand Jury is all available here: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html

 

All evidence shows that there was a close minor altercation at first, then Michael Brown ran away and then knelt down with his arms up. Fearing from one life from someone running away just doesn't pass. The fact the Chief has stated that Wilson will be getting his job back prior to the results coming out shows what little he thinks of the death of Michael Brown. Michael Brown's body was left out for four hours (and there are photos of Wilson standing over the body which showed at least one police witness lied) - that is a message. If someone can shoot up a movie theatre and kill 12 people without being shot and brought in peacefully, if escaped convicts can be brought in peacefully, why not Michael Brown? Or John Crawford? Or the other hundreds of people?

 

The fact that someone whose death was ruled a homicide doesn't even deserve to have the shooter go to trial and that this is happening over and over again. Michael Brown's family doesn't even get a trial. John Crawford's family doesn't get a trial for being shot while holding a BB gun in a store that sells BB guns in an open carry state on camera that has had open carry protests of families going into such stories with automatic weapons without police intervention or violence - Crawford's child will never know him and his family is told that it isn't worth going to trial. Tamir Rice's family is likely not going to get it either when their 12 year old gets shot by police for playing with a toy gun in an open carry state -- and the 911 call recording shows that the dispatcher asked twice if the person holding the gun was black or white. There is an obvious pattern here and to ignore it is disingenuous.  An unarmed black person is killed in US on average every 36 hours. This isn't black people provoking anything, no one is provoking white police officers to shoot them. John Crawford was literally leaning on the BB gun with a phone on his hand, Tamir Rice was singing on the swings when police arrived, Michael Brown was walking home with a friend. it's a system that is built to do this and needs to be properly dealt with and until it is these things will keep happening. The world looks on, people around the world have joined together in solidarity, governments around the world have called for restraint and justice, and yet the system that thrives on this still gets supported unchallenged, without trial. 

[umsami]

Except it wasn't. Period.

 

Yup. It wasn't. 

 

Because the Prosecuting Attorney did not do his job, which is to advocate for the victim.

 

Because the Prosecuting Attorney did not recuse himself, in spite of the fact that his own father was a white policeman who was killed by a black man.

 

Because the Prosecuting Attorney has a long history of siding with the police. (See article linked above.)

 

Because the Prosecuting Attorney followed unusual procedures, letting the Grand Jury drown in a sea of evidence, rather than do what he's supposed to do...and lay out a case for an indictment.

 

"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..."

"Kevin Curran, president of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Vox that the choice to use this tactic instead of presenting "an advocate's case" — which McCulloch could have done by arguing for one or more specific charges against Wilson using a few key witness statements — made an indictment much less likely."

 

It was not the job of the Grand Jury to weigh the mountains of evidence.  Their job was to see if there was probable cause for a trial.  The fact that an unarmed man was shot six times, twice in the head, was probable cause for a trial.  The DA didn't want an indictment.  He protected the officer because of his Daddy.  It was not justice.

[ktgrok]

Grand Jury decision aside, someone help me understand how relations between residents and police are supposed to improve by looting and arson. 

 

The people doing that have given up. They don't think things CAN be better. Or, they think it is already a war, and they are fighting back. 

 

In any conflict in history, white, black, whatever, there are always those on the outskirts doing things that shouldn't be done. IN any war, how many women are raped by soldiers? How many thefts? How much looting? It happens. 

[Donna A.]

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

 

Yes, he did.  That's why he was in the neighborhood.  He was tending to another incident when the call first came through, and he actually stayed there until that situation was resolved before he came over to the store area where Brown was.  He saw Brown, then realized he fit the description of the thief and turned around.  Wilson hadn't even gotten out of his car when Brown came up to him and started harassing (and evidently, hitting) HIM while STILL IN HIS CAR.

[momacacia]

Grand Jury decision aside, someone help me understand how relations between residents and police are supposed to improve by looting and arson.

Exactly. :( The destruction in that city this morning is so sad. And family businesses damaged or destroyed, the owners and employees of whom very likely are also black. There was much more looting and arson last night than actual protection and as I watched our local news, I just could not figure out where the law enforcement response was!

 

The quote is very much like what a black law enforcement officer said on the news this morning--destructive criminal behavior isn't going to change anything, we need to use words. I felt very sorry for him and the long, sad night I'm sure he had had.

[Donna A.]

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

 

This is your evidence that Wilson didn't know Brown was the robber?  First of all, CNN is one of the liberal media darlings that propogated this whole mess in the first place.  Secondly, the date of that article is August 15th -- LONG before all the evidence was in.  On August 15th, there was a LOT of hearsay floating around. 

 

And people who continue to spread the lies and hearsay from liberal news articles dated three months ago are part of the problem, contributing to the ongoing anger, hated, violence, and (often) false accusations of racism.

[Donna A.]

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.      

 

That is reverse racism at its finest.... assuming what I know and don't know just because I'm not black.  I've studied history, and I have many black friends.  

 

And if that's true, that the black population generally knows NOT to engage with a police officer, then why do so many do it?  What do you think it is when hundreds or even thousands of black people incite violence with their rioting, beatings, looting, and burning buildings?  And why did Michael Brown approach Wilson's police car and begin attacking him?  I hardly call them "not engaging in any way". 

 

My black friends are appalled and humiliated by all this.  The Michael Brown supporters/rioters/inciters of violence do NOT represent them.  :( 

 

In OUR city, the black population is calling for PEACEFUL protests.  That is NOT what's happening in Ferguson.

[hjffkj]

Tacky: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/darren-wilson-indictment-statement-brown-family/?tw=pl

There is nothing tacky about that. The family will likely file a civil suit against him so his lawyers urged him not to discuss the issue at all and released a statement reflecting that advice.

[MrsMommy]

Yes, he did.  That's why he was in the neighborhood.  He was tending to another incident when the call first came through, and he actually stayed there until that situation was resolved before he came over to the store area where Brown was.  He saw Brown, then realized he fit the description of the thief and turned around.  Wilson hadn't even gotten out of his car when Brown came up to him and started harassing (and evidently, hitting) HIM while STILL IN HIS CAR.

 

Interesting spin given that the actual testimony says otherwise.