Politics Ferguson

I agree with those who pointed out this this grand jury was convened in a manner way outside the norm, with the prosecutors almost more like counsel for the defendant than conducting an inquiry and simply presenting enough evidence to demonstrate reasonable doubt of the cop's actions.

It feeds into the lack of faith that many (most?) blacks have in the criminal justice system. Whites have not been routinely subject to such discrimination. From "driving while black" and subject to stops by police for no apparent reason, to having higher bail for comparable crimes, to being far more likely to be excluded from juries , to disparities in sentencing....

That mistrust will continue to fester after cases like this and until the country addresses the real (or even just perceived) dual system of justice.

 

Even my mother sees pictures of places like Detroit and thinks it's something from war-torn Ukraine or Sarajevo or somewhere like that.

 

This is why we needed a trial in Ferguson.
It took The Smoking Gun to prove that the primary witness who corroborated officer Darren Wilson's testimony was flat out lying.

"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson | The Smoking Gun

 

The lack of an indictment is maybe the best possible outcome for Darren Wilson. But for anything/anyone else - total bullshit. None of the evidence gets any legitimate vetting without a trial. The prosecutor's unconventional approach and its resulting lack of a trial justifies the argument that black people don't get a fair shake in the criminal justice system. Have a fucking trial. What are you afraid of? Did you spend all your tryin' money on tear gas?

 

Relevant: Dead Horse Write-Up

 

Let me guess, the guy who wrote that is a cop, or used to be a cop?

One huge disconnect between noncops and cops is that noncops expect to be shot when they pose a legitimate threat, whereas cops expect to be able to shoot (not that they're always going to shoot) whenever they feel scared (oh, was that gun actually a wallet, lulz!). I can see why cops like this standard, but there are a lot of ways it is problematic. What if we lived (we do) in a society that sets up the expectation that people who have a certain skin tone are more prone to crime, physical aggression and greater athletic ability? Does this mean that a police officer might feel more threatened by a person of said skin color than a person of a different skin color for the exact same behavior? How would this subconscious racial bias play out across the whole society? Might it result in legitimate complaints of discrimination? Is argumentation via rhetorical question obnoxious (yes, sorry)?

What happens if a cop shoots someone who was scary, but who wasn't a legitimate threat? Who decides whether the cop was justified? Why are police departments and local prosecutors responsible for determining the answers to these questions when there are such obvious conflicts of interest?

 

thats the problem, in my opinion, no one can really decide. everyone will have their own views

 

Totally. I don't need to work at Subway to know when the mayo is spoiled in my sandwich. I don't need to be an orchard-manager-person to know when my barrel of apples has been spoiled by a rotten few.

I think a careful weighing of the discourse on any subject will reveal standard levels of stupidity on every side. The choice to focus on the stupid is convenient rhetorically though.

 

The article talks a lot about how the grand jury cleared officer Wilson but that is my main problem.
The prosecutor had a clear bias, at least one of the witnesses who corroborated Wilson's testimony has been proven to be a liar and the presentation of the law included one that was no longer valid (that police can shoot people who are running away).

All cases involving police shootings need to have an independent prosecutor.
They also need to be properly tracked instead of lost in the system.
Right now we really don't know how many people are killed by police in this country because it's not required that it be reported to a central database.

 

Uhhh, police can shoot people who are running away, if they represent a threat to the public. Assaulting a law enforcement officer and attempting to disarm him definitely qualifies as that.

 

Guess that depends on how the jury instructions were carried out.
In this case they were done horribly.

“Shocking Mistake” Exposed in Darren Wilson Grand Jury | The Free Thought Project

 

Brown was not shot for robbing cigars, brown assaulted a police officer, attempted to disarm him. I would have no qualms shooting in the same situation. And as far as him attempting to flee, I would end that attempt to flee by any means necessary, so that he doesn't get the drop on the next officer he encounters who might be walking into an ambush. As soon as he did that, he showed what he was capable of. That is the information that I would have to work with. The stripper who assaulted me did it after she was handcuffed and secured in my vehicle. People are capable of irrational decisions. The article you referenced specifically mentions the threat to the public. But then blames Wilson's actions only on the theft. Not his attacking Wilson.

 

Allegedly.

 

So the coroner's report is only alleged? Or is that an official record? And your mayonnaise is only allegedly rotten.

 

You're a cop, right? So how come you don't know that a person can't be convicted of a crime, sans trial, solely via coroner's report?

I think you're confused about the mayo example. I used it to deflate the sorts of appeals to authority that treat noncops like they have nothing meaningful to say about how officers behave. Nowhere was my mayonnaise example contingent on the difference between alleged crimes vs crimes as determined by a court of law.

 

The problem with the coroner's report is that it gives the results of actions, not the cause.
We only have the officers testimony as to the cause.
Since there was some very bad work done in terms of other forensic evidence and the only other person who could testify as to the cause is dead it becomes incumbent on the prosecutor to not be a defense attorney.
Do I think the case would have gone any other way if it had gone to trial?
I don't know, it's very possible that they would have proven Wilson not guilty but as long as the case was transparent and handled properly I would have no problem with that.

 

I saw a link on my Yahoo home page to a report titled
Another Black Boy Gunned Down Police.

I didn't click on it, and I'm not posting a link because I find the title repulsive.