Ferguson unrest

[cybercoma]

You wouldn't happen to have a credible link, would you?

Sure. Let me just link to the prosecutors office. The prosecutor who works directly with the police he's supposed to be investigating. How about I link to the officers' reports. The officers who work side-by-side with the cop who killed Brown. Maybe I could show you Wilson's report. Are the words of the person who murdered someone credible enough for you? God forbid a civil rights legal expert say something about a legal decision to a media outlet you deem not worthy of your attention.

[cybercoma]

It's spelled hearsay and it's from Wilson's own testimony. But since you read it, you'd know that, right?

Not to mention hearsay is permissible to a grand jury, but Smallc doesn't seem to have a problem with their decision.

[eyeball]

I agree...it is a problem for "teens" who threaten police and other citizens. Sucks to be them....

No you don't you're just being facetious.

[bush_cheney2004]

Guess again....I agree...it is a problem for "teens" who threaten police and other citizens. Sucks to be them....

[cybercoma]

That's not pathetic at all given the apparent circumstances. Because those circumstances don't agree with your narrative, you've totally dismissed them.

I wouldn't want you looking beyond the individual case. Let's not consider society, history, or context here. Just another dead thug. No relation to the fact that black people are disproportionately targeted and abused by the police. That has nothing to do with anything here. We should just ignore that because we're white and happy and can pretend it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

Black lives matter. Every life matters. When a cop shoots and kills someone who is not armed, I expect there to be a full investigation and a trial. If you can't see a problem with someone who works side-by-side with the cops deciding single handedly what evidence to present to a grand jury and essentially determining whether or not it goes to trial, then you're just not looking. Convenient for you that you have the privilege not tot have to worry about the cops killing you in the streets.

Edited November 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Of course, I would expect those things from a civilized nation. One that condones the execution of its citizens and holds onto the ideology that people should be armed to take justice into their own hands is hardly what I would call a civilized society.

[Big Guy]

The Grand Jury system in the USA requires that 9 of 12 impartial people make the same decision.

There appear to be a number of posters who disagree with the decision and are trying to back that up with what they think are the facts. If you are really serious about pretending to be one of that jury then you should have access to the evidence (or lack of such) that was presented to them.

What this jury was presented with can be found at;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html

Edited November 25, 2014 by Big Guy

[Smallc]

It's spelled hearsay and it's from Wilson's own testimony. But since you read it, you'd know that, right?

You know you have no argument left when

[Smallc]

Not to mention hearsay is permissible to a grand jury, but Smallc doesn't seem to have a problem with their decision.

I don't have a problem with their decision. Given the evidence available publicly it was the right decision.

[Spiderfish]

People who have already made up their minds don't need or want a system, unless of course it agrees with what they have already decided.

In every system, someone is tasked with deciding whether charges are laid. In our case, Crown prosecutors, in this case, a Grand Jury. Neither is perfect but both are rooted in the law. So show us a better way because it sure isn't burning down a neighbourhood and destroying the livelihoods of innocent people.

Well stated.

Crump put the blame on the prosecution, the system, everything he could think of. He blamed the prosecution for submitting too much information, calling it a data dump with the intention of overwhelming the jury with information. He has made accusations that the thoroughness of the information that was released to the public today was an effort to" hide the truth in plain sight." There is nothing that would have satisfied this guy.

I think that the reaction seen in the wake of the ruling was unavoidable. The step father of Michael Brown called for it to be burned to the ground and it was, so mission accomplished. I'm not sure it made him feel any better though. Perhaps Its not surprising that in the aftermath, the thugs and protestors are now accusing the fire department of intentionally letting it all burn, shifting the blame on the prepole who were trying to save the city.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, I would expect those things from a civilized nation. One that condones the execution of its citizens and holds onto the ideology that people should be armed to take justice into their own hands is hardly what I would call a civilized society.

Then why are you wasting time on this....the U.S. is a "dungheap"....right? Shooting the mentally ill in Vancouver is much more civilized.

[Smallc]

I wouldn't want you looking beyond the individual case. Let's not consider society, history, or context here. Just another dead thug. No relation to the fact that black people are disproportionately targeted and abused by the police. That has nothing to do with anything here. We should just ignore that because we're white and happy and can pretend it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

Black lives matter. Every life matters. When a cop shoots and kills someone who is not armed, I expect there to be a full investigation and a trial. If you can't see a problem with someone who works side-by-side with the cops deciding single handedly what evidence to present to a grand jury and essentially determining whether or not it goes to trial, then you're just not looking. Convenient for you that you have the privilege not tot have to worry about the cops killing you in the streets.

This is about this case, not about context and history. Every case must be examined individually.

[Black Dog]

You know you have no argument left when

When you start going down irrelevant sideroads about when others have no argument left? Indeed.

[Black Dog]

I don't have a problem with their decision. Given the evidence available publicly it was the right decision.

Have you reviewed the evidence it or not? Simple question.

[Smallc]

When you start going down irrelevant sideroads about when others have no argument left? Indeed.

The physical evidence is actually far more important that what Wilson himself had to say. His memory is in fact not that reliable given the circumstances. Hearsay may very well be allowed, but it is far less valuable than hard physical evidence.

[Big Guy]

google ny times ferguson jury transcript

[Smallc]

Have you reviewed the evidence it or not? Simple question.

I have seen the evidence available in the media.

[Argus]

Except I did give a shit when an unarmed white dude in Vancouver was tasered to death. Or a kid was shot several times in close quarters on a street car, despite having a knife and being even more of a threat than Brown.

And so did I. But I don't care about this. The difference being this one was justified.

Brown was a thug. You can't admit that because he's Black. He'd be a thug if he was White too.

[Argus]

For starters, I want the cops to stop killing people when they don't need to.

The people who get to decide whether he needed to are the cops involved, and the grand juries afterward.

Not you.

[Black Dog]

The physical evidence is actually far more important that what Wilson himself had to say. His memory is in fact not that reliable given the circumstances. Hearsay may very well be allowed, but it is far less valuable than hard physical evidence.

Would physical evidence include, for example, blood and gun powder residue on Wilson's body and clothes?

Also: what physical evidence is there to suggest Brown was charging Wilson when he was killed?

I have seen the evidence available in the media.

So you are relying on hearsay.

[Argus]

I'm sure the police department with the long history of racism and corruption did an exemplary job of investigating one of their own.

The FBI also investigated every aspect of this case, as ordered by a Black Attorney General and a Black president.

[Argus]

I wonder, is it SOP after a shooting for the officer responsible to go to hospital by himself and to get a chance to wash up afterwards without anyone taking any swabs?

It's certainly standard for an officer who was punched hard and shows signs of bruising to go to hospital. Swabs? What the hell kind of swabs do you want? You want to know if he had ear wax?

[Argus]

And tens if not hundreds of millions are free to pursue greater civil rights.

By burning down the homes and businesses in their own neighbourhoods!

Edited November 25, 2014 by Argus

[Smallc]

Would physical evidence include, for example, blood and gun powder residue on Wilson's body and clothes?

Also: what physical evidence is there to suggest Brown was charging Wilson when he was killed?

So you are relying on hearsay.

Well Pf course there was blood and gun powder residue on the officer. A gun was fired in the ca and he later killed the suspect with it. Ditto for blood.

[Argus]

The Grand Jury process is not like a proper trial. It's entirely controlled by the prosecutor, who is often buddy-buddy with the police department since they work so closely. He's not required to present and exculpatory evidence and can bring hearsay evidence to the table. It seems like you're under the mistaken assumption that a Grand Jury is like a public trial when it's not. There should have been enough evidence here for this case to at least go to trial for manslaughter. Then the facts could have been scrutinized in court by the lawyers and heard by a jury. The fact that this didn't even go to trial is obscene.

You do realize the standard of evidence to convict in a trial is FAR higher than the standard of evidence required for a grand jury to indict, right?

Also, you just complained that the prosecutor controls the grand jury presentation. Are you operating under the belief that being joined by defense council in controlling a trial will be more likely to lead to a conviction? I mean, the defense isn't even present during the grand jury hearings, and can't challenge anything nor cross examine hostile witnesses.