hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 13, 2014 21:28:23 GMT -5
Hi BMartin With respect. There were a few shots fired when Brown reached in the car and tried to take the officer's gun. However, if what you stated is correct, then Brown would have been shot in the back. No one has claimed that any of the shots were to the back, so Brown had to be facing Officer Wilson and not moving away. Once again, we need to go forward and try to find possible solutions (this will not be easy). Jerry I suggest you read the available documents, Jerry. I will give Wilson credit for being able to hit the kid from 50 yards away. I'm sure an unarmed kid represented quite a danger from that distance. And if you believe that bull$hit tale Wilson was spinning to the grand jury, we should talk about this bridge that may be for sale...
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,705
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 14, 2014 0:11:56 GMT -5
Since posters are speaking about the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, has anyone read Witness #40 testimony of the altercation which collaborates with Officer Wilson's? Conservatives or viewers of Fox News may be familiar with quotes from this witness as Sean Hannity has quoted her numerous times via his show. The famous quote being: " The big kid turned around and had his arms out with an attitude and the cop just stood there. Dang, if that kid not start running right at the cop like a football player, head down." Direct quote from Witness #40 testimony and submitted as evidence to the "Grand Jury" by Ferguson's District Attorney Robert P. McCulloch. www.nationalreview.com/corner/394401/curious-case-fergusons-witness-no-40-ian-tuttleMore important is the fact that, as the questioning persists, Witness 40’s account becomes increasingly unreliable. She testifies to driving out of the Canfield Green Apartment complex by an exit that, according to investigators, does not exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 7:23:55 GMT -5
Hi BMartin With respect. There were a few shots fired when Brown reached in the car and tried to take the officer's gun. However, if what you stated is correct, then Brown would have been shot in the back. No one has claimed that any of the shots were to the back, so Brown had to be facing Officer Wilson and not moving away. Once again, we need to go forward and try to find possible solutions (this will not be easy). Jerry I suggest you read the available documents, Jerry. I will give Wilson credit for being able to hit the kid from 50 yards away. I'm sure an unarmed kid represented quite a danger from that distance. And if you believe that bull$hit tale Wilson was spinning to the grand jury, we should talk about this bridge that may be for sale... Hi again. I admit that I have not read all the documents. It is an enormous body of evidence. I have fired pistols and actually got to be a decent shot. To be able to hit someone from 50 yards away is truly remarkable. Here is what confuses me. If the officer shot him from 50 yards away, this doesn't make sense since all of the shots occurred in a couple of seconds (according to the audio recordings) aside from the couple of shots in the car and Brown wouldn't have been able to get within 30 yards of the officer. However, I really would like to know your viewpoint on these questions. 1. How much was racism a factor 2. How culpable do you feel the officers are. What should be the appropriate punishment in each case. I don't want to debate this. I just would like to know your point of view. Thanks Jerry
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Dec 14, 2014 10:19:21 GMT -5
This thread has become some sort of wormhole to an off-season thread on the B&G board.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2014 10:22:00 GMT -5
Moving to B&G board.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 14, 2014 12:13:52 GMT -5
I'll say it once again, no matter how much the media tries to connect the two, the NY case and the Ferguson case details are extremely different. Just because the races of the suspect were the same and the fact the police were involved does not automatically make them the same situation. The use of force and the level of the force used by police are dictated by many different conditions and circumstances. In the Ferguson case, you have a lone officer contacting two suspects, one of who is 6'5" 300lbs and had just committed a violent crime. When the officer contacted him, he viciously attacked the cop and apparently tried to take his gun. If you would review use of force policies from any federal/state/local law enforcement agency, as well as decades of case law, you would realize deadly force is defensible in this case. Deadly force is authorized when it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another individual. Whether you agree with him or not, he apparently felt his life was in danger and made the decision to use deadly force. In fact, this type of scenario is used frequently to teach use of force policies to new recruits. You may disagree with it, but the law supports that the suspect doesn't need his own gun to justify deadly force. The scenario given to new recruits is a situation where you try to arrest a suspect who then attacks you. The suspect is bigger and stronger than you, and physically overpowers you while beating you. You feel another strike might render you unconscious and then you feel the suspect trying to take your gun. What would you do in that situation? There isn't video of the encounter, but Wilson's account shows he felt he was in a life and death struggle. You can debate whether he exaggerated the danger, but unless you were there you can't completely discount his version. Now let's say that situation was different: there were 5 cops and 1 suspect, the suspect was 5'7" and 150 lbs, the officers had surrounded the suspect but the suspect was still fighting the cops. In that situation, you definitely could not shoot the suspect because the circumstances and conditions wouldn't support a contention that your life, or another's life, was in danger. And the fact that a grand jury didn't indict in Ferguson should tell you how little evidence there was to prove the officer committed a crime. Was it a tragedy? Of course, I would have much preferred that Brown wasn't killed and had been prosecuted and imprisoned for his crimes. Talos, you continue to ignore, or at best downplay, the fact that black males are overwhelmingly the victims in these encounters. That is a systemic issue for our country. Our perspectives quite clearly are shaped by different experiences. There is no way you can justify to me the use of deadly force in Ferguson or any of the other murders which have been in the news. And yes, I used the word murders. As well, this issue resonates across the nation. Witness the many protests taking place in the country. Wilson told a fairy tale, and got away with it. The officer in NY used a choke hold, on camera. A child with a toy gun was murdered in Cleveland. It's time for this nonsense to stop. First, I don't think you can use the word murder in this case without having actual evidence. You may not like it in this case, but a police officer still deserves due process and is "innocent until proven guilty." What actual evidence is there to prove a crime was committed by the officer? I didn't witness the incident and neither did you, so there needs to be actual evidence to proceed in a criminal case. A grand jury was convened, one that had both white and African-American citizens on it. They all agreed there was so little evidence to even suggest a crime was committed by the officer that it didn't even go to a trial. There is an old legal joke that says "you can indict a ham sandwich." In other words, the grand jury process is so heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution (no defense attorneys, no defense witnesses, no exculpatory evidence) that only an incredibly flimsy case with no real evidence doesn't return an indictment. Those private citizens who sit on the grand jury are educated on the applicable laws, rules of evidence, use of force policies, and then presented the facts and evidence of the case (autopsies, fingerprints, forensic evidence, witness statements, etc.). The fact that they didn't even feel this case warranted a trial should tell you something. Secondly, I dispute your use of the word "victim" in the Ferguson case. The term "victim" applies to someone who has been subjected to an actual crime. In Ferguson, no real evidence existed to proceed with criminal charges and thus that term doesn't apply to Brown. Furthermore, it's hard to justify calling him a victim when Brown had just finished committing a violent crime and then initiated another violent encounter by attacking the officer. In my opinion, the most important aspect of the case is whether Brown tried to take the officer's gun. If he did, then deadly force is completely justified. If he didn't, then it is much harder for the officer to articulate the use of deadly force. And as I've said before, I'm not ignoring the race of the suspects in these case, I'm just saying that each incident deserves to be judged on its own merits and facts. Generalized assumptions while ignoring the actual facts leads to incorrect conclusions. And I'll say it again; the NY case is much different than Ferguson. The facts of that case make it very difficult for that officer to justify his use of force and the technique he used.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 14, 2014 12:17:49 GMT -5
This is exactly my thoughts on the Brown shooting.. The fact that Wilson left the safety of his vehicle to pursue Brown bothers me, if he was that scared for his life why not keep a safe distance while you await back-up? Also the fact that I've never heard that Brown's fingerprints were found on his gun, the forensic reports state "DNA" was found which I always thought meant blood.. Wilson stated in both his interview with the detective after the shooting and the Grand Jury that Brown grabbed his gun so shouldn't there have been prints left? Thoughts Talos? Office Wilson used the exact same story as Zimmerman. Young unarmed black kid went for his gun and he was forced to shoot him to death. Whoa, so now you're going to compare Ferguson to Trayvon Martin?? I'm sorry, I try to keep discussion on a respectful level, but that's just a ridiculous comparison. Zimmerman wasn't a police officer, he was a wannabe cop and an idiot. It wasn't his job to confront Martin, but it was Officer Wilson's job to confront a robbery suspect.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 14, 2014 12:26:13 GMT -5
No police force trains officers to do what Wilson did. Even if you accept his account of what happened at the car door, that danger was over when Brown fled so it does not justify what happened down the street. This is exactly my thoughts on the Brown shooting.. The fact that Wilson left the safety of his vehicle to pursue Brown bothers me, if he was that scared for his life why not keep a safe distance while you await back-up? Also the fact that I've never heard that Brown's fingerprints were found on his gun, the forensic reports state "DNA" was found which I always thought meant blood.. Wilson stated in both his interview with the detective after the shooting and the Grand Jury that Brown grabbed his gun so shouldn't there have been prints left? Thoughts Talos? That's a good question about the fingerprints. Fingerprints are a very fickle form of evidence, and it's not as easy as the movies/TV make it look. In many cases it's difficult to pull usable prints, as the surface of the object, what it's made of, possible contamination (either intentional or unintentional), can render them useless. Also, the fact that Wilson held his gun after Brown allegedly grabbed it, might completely wipe out Brown's fingerprints. That's unfortunate, because I feel that part of the case (whether Brown grabbed his gun) is by far the most important fact. I know some people won't like it, but law enforcement officers are trained on this very situation. In my first academy, we were given a scenario that was striking in its similarity to the Brown incident. You are working alone and contact an individual; he becomes belligerent, attacks you and begins beating you. He is much bigger and stronger than you, and then starts grabbing for your gun. What do you do?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,705
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 14, 2014 12:39:45 GMT -5
This is exactly my thoughts on the Brown shooting.. The fact that Wilson left the safety of his vehicle to pursue Brown bothers me, if he was that scared for his life why not keep a safe distance while you await back-up? Also the fact that I've never heard that Brown's fingerprints were found on his gun, the forensic reports state "DNA" was found which I always thought meant blood.. Wilson stated in both his interview with the detective after the shooting and the Grand Jury that Brown grabbed his gun so shouldn't there have been prints left? Thoughts Talos? That's a good question about the fingerprints. Fingerprints are a very fickle form of evidence, and it's not as easy as the movies/TV make it look. In many cases it's difficult to pull usable prints, as the surface of the object, what it's made of, possible contamination (either intentional or unintentional), can render them useless. Also, the fact that Wilson held his gun after Brown allegedly grabbed it, might completely wipe out Brown's fingerprints. That's unfortunate, because I feel that part of the case (whether Brown grabbed his gun) is by far the most important fact. I know some people won't like it, but law enforcement officers are trained on this very situation. In my first academy, we were given a scenario that was striking in its similarity to the Brown incident. You are working alone and contact an individual; he becomes belligerent, attacks you and begins beating you. He is much bigger and stronger than you, and then starts grabbing for your gun. What do you do? Thanks for the info about fingerprints Talos,maybe I do watch too many Law & Order re-runs.. At least a partial print would have been nice though.. Honestly, I don't have an issue with the shots Wilson fired during the altercation at his vehicle.. Wilson or any officer/person should do what they can to get themselves out of harms way however once Brown leaves the vehicle to me it's no longer life or death for Wilson right? The fact that he left the safety of his vehicle just moments after he thought one more punch to his head would render him unconscious just doesn't sit right with me..
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 14, 2014 12:46:38 GMT -5
"First, I don't think you can use the word murder in this case without having actual evidence. You may not like it in this case, but a police officer still deserves due process and is "innocent until proven guilty." What actual evidence is there to prove a crime was committed by the officer?" Innocent until proven guilty is for a criminal trial in a courtroom, something these officers will not experience. I find it manipulative when people demand that others' opinions follow courtroom procedures. What actual evidence? Well you know, the video that we can see in Garner's case, and the shot to death unarmed 18 year old in the Brown case.
That doesn't shift the legal burden, but individuals are allowed to form their own opinions.
[About the grand jury not indicting]"The fact that they didn't even feel this case warranted a trial should tell you something." Yeah, it should tell you that the prosecutor in the Brown case intentionally manipulated the process. No other lawyer I've spoken to that has read through the documents believes he did a good job. It was a complete abdication of his responsibilities. Arguing that the legal result proves it was just is literally ignoring the entire point of this discussion.
"The term "victim" applies to someone who has been subjected to an actual crime." Ugh, you're really all about controlling how people discuss these events. Where are you getting that definition, besides clearly just making it up? You can be a victim of a crime, accident, tragedy, whatever. Someone who has been shot to death is a shooting victim. Someone who has been choked to death is a victim. You keep demanding that people even DISCUSS the case in the bounds of the narrative you believe. It's obnoxious.
"And as I've said before, I'm not ignoring the race of the suspects in these case, I'm just saying that each incident deserves to be judged on its own merits and facts. Generalized assumptions while ignoring the actual facts leads to incorrect conclusions." You keep saying stuff like this, but I don't see you pointing out what incorrect conclusions people are drawing. Instead, it again looks like you seeking to limit the ways people discuss these issues.
"I know some people won't like it, but law enforcement officers are trained on this very situation. In my first academy, we were given a scenario that was striking in its similarity to the Brown incident. You are working alone and contact an individual; he becomes belligerent, attacks you and begins beating you. He is much bigger and stronger than you, and then starts grabbing for your gun. What do you do?" Well, that's a big IF, which should have been determined by an actual jury in a criminal trial. But since we're talking about officer training, what about the fact that Wilson ignored all chain of evidence standards after the incident? Washing his evidence-covered clothes, being the sole handler of his evidence-covered gun. Stuff like that generally seems pretty important...
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 14, 2014 14:36:36 GMT -5
That's a good question about the fingerprints. Fingerprints are a very fickle form of evidence, and it's not as easy as the movies/TV make it look. In many cases it's difficult to pull usable prints, as the surface of the object, what it's made of, possible contamination (either intentional or unintentional), can render them useless. Also, the fact that Wilson held his gun after Brown allegedly grabbed it, might completely wipe out Brown's fingerprints. That's unfortunate, because I feel that part of the case (whether Brown grabbed his gun) is by far the most important fact. I know some people won't like it, but law enforcement officers are trained on this very situation. In my first academy, we were given a scenario that was striking in its similarity to the Brown incident. You are working alone and contact an individual; he becomes belligerent, attacks you and begins beating you. He is much bigger and stronger than you, and then starts grabbing for your gun. What do you do? Thanks for the info about fingerprints Talos,maybe I do watch too many Law & Order re-runs.. At least a partial print would have been nice though.. Honestly, I don't have an issue with the shots Wilson fired during the altercation at his vehicle.. Wilson or any officer/person should do what they can to get themselves out of harms way however once Brown leaves the vehicle to me it's no longer life or death for Wilson right? The fact that he left the safety of his vehicle just moments after he thought one more punch to his head would render him unconscious just doesn't sit right with me.. I do agree; there are lots of questions about this incident and unfortunately not a lot of hard evidence to definitely say what happened at certain points in the confrontation. Certain points in Wilson's statement can be corroborated, and other points cannot. I guess what it came down to was based on the available evidence the grand jury felt there wasn't enough to proceed to trial. If Wilson's entire statement was true, then deadly force was probably justified. If his statement was not accurate, then perhaps it wasn't.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 14, 2014 15:05:19 GMT -5
"First, I don't think you can use the word murder in this case without having actual evidence. You may not like it in this case, but a police officer still deserves due process and is "innocent until proven guilty." What actual evidence is there to prove a crime was committed by the officer?" Innocent until proven guilty is for a criminal trial in a courtroom, something these officers will not experience. I find it manipulative when people demand that others' opinions follow courtroom procedures. What actual evidence? Well you know, the video that we can see in Garner's case, and the shot to death unarmed 18 year old in the Brown case. That doesn't shift the legal burden, but individuals are allowed to form their own opinions. [About the grand jury not indicting]"The fact that they didn't even feel this case warranted a trial should tell you something." Yeah, it should tell you that the prosecutor in the Brown case intentionally manipulated the process. No other lawyer I've spoken to that has read through the documents believes he did a good job. It was a complete abdication of his responsibilities. Arguing that the legal result proves it was just is literally ignoring the entire point of this discussion. "The term "victim" applies to someone who has been subjected to an actual crime." Ugh, you're really all about controlling how people discuss these events. Where are you getting that definition, besides clearly just making it up? You can be a victim of a crime, accident, tragedy, whatever. Someone who has been shot to death is a shooting victim. Someone who has been choked to death is a victim. You keep demanding that people even DISCUSS the case in the bounds of the narrative you believe. It's obnoxious. "And as I've said before, I'm not ignoring the race of the suspects in these case, I'm just saying that each incident deserves to be judged on its own merits and facts. Generalized assumptions while ignoring the actual facts leads to incorrect conclusions." You keep saying stuff like this, but I don't see you pointing out what incorrect conclusions people are drawing. Instead, it again looks like you seeking to limit the ways people discuss these issues. "I know some people won't like it, but law enforcement officers are trained on this very situation. In my first academy, we were given a scenario that was striking in its similarity to the Brown incident. You are working alone and contact an individual; he becomes belligerent, attacks you and begins beating you. He is much bigger and stronger than you, and then starts grabbing for your gun. What do you do?" Well, that's a big IF, which should have been determined by an actual jury in a criminal trial. But since we're talking about officer training, what about the fact that Wilson ignored all chain of evidence standards after the incident? Washing his evidence-covered clothes, being the sole handler of his evidence-covered gun. Stuff like that generally seems pretty important... I never said someone's opinion has to follow the strict rules of evidence. You are certainly entitled to any opinion you want, I was just pointing out that just because Brown is dead doesn't automatically mean someone is guilty of murder. So how do you know that the prosecutor "intentionally manipulated" the grand jury proceeding?? Why make that kind of accusation without any facts? And even if you believe the prosecutor did a poor job, that doesn't mean he intentionally manipulated the process. I'm not going to defend the prosecutor, but I'm not also going to make baseless accusations either without any proof. When you write a law enforcement report, there are standard words you use to describe individuals (victim, witness, subject, suspect, etc.). Perhaps I was being too literal, but I was certainly not "making it up" that definition. You can certainly use victim to describe Brown, and I am certainly free to challenge that description. And you never answered my question on what you would do if you were the officer in the hypothetical situation described above. It's very easy for the media, pundits, and armchair lawyers to critique and Monday-morning quarterback an officer after the fact. It's quite another situation to be the one in a life and death struggle. As I've said before, my support for Wilson is conditional on his statement being accurate. And as I've said before, I did not support the NY officer based on the circumstances and the technique he used. I probably should stop posting in this thread, but I want to make sure people hear the other side of the story. From what I've seen in the media, the coverage has been quite one-sided and has omitted any discussion about use of force case law, use of force policies, or the very important fact that in certain extreme situations deadly force can legally be used without the suspect having his own weapon (which is an incorrect conclusion many people have drawn). I don't expect to change your mind; it's obvious this issue is personal and emotional for you. But there's no need for name-calling or accusatory comments. This issue is very personal and emotional for me also, but even though I may argue with them I also respect other's opinions and have not insulted anyone for their personal views.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 14, 2014 15:58:31 GMT -5
If Wilson's entire statement was true, then deadly force was probably justified. If his statement was not accurate, then perhaps it wasn't. And according to this grand jury, to steal another poster's appropriate reference, "Nothing to see here. Move along."
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 14, 2014 18:27:54 GMT -5
"I'm not going to defend the prosecutor, but I'm not also going to make baseless accusations either without any proof."
Have you read through the proceedings? The prosecutor aggressively cross examines witnesses whose testimony contradicts the police narrative. When it comes to Wilson, he treats him with kid gloves, asks soft, leading questions, and doesn't challenge him on inconsistencies in his story. It's in stark contrast to his tactics with other witnesses. He should have recused himself in the first place. This has been discussed on this board, across tons of news stories, commentaries, analyses. I assume that since you're posting so much on this subject it means you have a decent knowledge of the incident, but apparently that's not your style.
"And you never answered my question on what you would do if you were the officer in the hypothetical situation described above."
Well the thing is I'm not a trained law enforcement officer. So my answer hardly seems relevant as anything other than an emotional distraction.
"I probably should stop posting in this thread, but I want to make sure people hear the other side of the story."
Well that was my point, what IS the other side of the story. You just keep challenging other people telling them they don't know what they know and be open minded and you're just here to tell the other side of the story. What are you telling? I don't see you offering the other side of the story, just pedantry and lame appeals to reason as if everyone else is being loony about things.
Your arguments are way less substantive than you're pretending, and you're treating other people's views as if they are inherently more unreasonable than yours. You're not being the voice of reason, you're expressing your opinion. When people confuse the two, it can be obnoxious. I'd respect your opinion if you offered it.
So what about that chain of custody for the evidence? What about Wilson's laughable testimony? What about the difference in treatment of witnesses? What about the inconsistencies in Wilson's story between reports? What about the prosecutor not recusing himself (if he thought this was so politically charged that it needed to go to a grand jury, clearly he was not the man to be running it)?
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Dec 14, 2014 20:54:56 GMT -5
There is an old legal joke that says "you can indict a ham sandwich." In other words, the grand jury process is so heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution (no defense attorneys, no defense witnesses, no exculpatory evidence) that only an incredibly flimsy case with no real evidence doesn't return an indictment. I think this has mostly been covered but I wanted to point out that you are again asserting things that are easily proven false by anyone even vaguely familiar with the case. Wilson, undoubtedly because he is a police officer, was allowed to testify at his own grand jury hearing, a privilege granted to pretty much no other accused at a grand jury hearing. The "you can indict a ham sandwich" statement only applies if the prosecutor wants to, which in Wilson's case it was quite clear he did not.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 14, 2014 21:05:24 GMT -5
There is an old legal joke that says "you can indict a ham sandwich." In other words, the grand jury process is so heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution (no defense attorneys, no defense witnesses, no exculpatory evidence) that only an incredibly flimsy case with no real evidence doesn't return an indictment. I think this has mostly been covered but I wanted to point out that you are again asserting things that are easily proven false by anyone even vaguely familiar with the case. Wilson, undoubtedly because he is a police officer, was allowed to testify at his own grand jury hearing, a privilege granted to pretty much no other accused at a grand jury hearing. The "you can indict a ham sandwich" statement only applies if the prosecutor wants to, which in Wilson's case it was quite clear he did not. A privilege? Ha! Most accused don't testify because their attorneys tell them not to do so, not because they aren't afforded the "privilege" of doing so.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 15, 2014 8:59:20 GMT -5
I suggest you read the available documents, Jerry. I will give Wilson credit for being able to hit the kid from 50 yards away. I'm sure an unarmed kid represented quite a danger from that distance. And if you believe that bull$hit tale Wilson was spinning to the grand jury, we should talk about this bridge that may be for sale... Hi again. I admit that I have not read all the documents. It is an enormous body of evidence. I have fired pistols and actually got to be a decent shot. To be able to hit someone from 50 yards away is truly remarkable. Here is what confuses me. If the officer shot him from 50 yards away, this doesn't make sense since all of the shots occurred in a couple of seconds (according to the audio recordings) aside from the couple of shots in the car and Brown wouldn't have been able to get within 30 yards of the officer. However, I really would like to know your viewpoint on these questions. 1. How much was racism a factor 2. How culpable do you feel the officers are. What should be the appropriate punishment in each case. I don't want to debate this. I just would like to know your point of view. Thanks Jerry Jerry, I bet that even you see that deep rooted racial disparities in law enforcement play a gargantuan role in these incidents. As for Ferguson, the for-profit policing employed there certainly leads to a disproportionate number of police actions against Black residents. In Brown's case, a needless death resulted. Places like Ferguson in St. Louis County are poorly funded, with small tax bases. Systemically, they target their own citizens with aggressive policing policies which result in fees, fines and court costs which represent their 2nd largest revenue source. That is racist. With regard to the officers, I believe that a jury should decide their cases. Do you not see a problem with every shoot being justifiable, with a trial never being warranted? You can call it racist, or not, but terminology aside, something stinks here Jerry.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 15, 2014 9:06:35 GMT -5
I think this has mostly been covered but I wanted to point out that you are again asserting things that are easily proven false by anyone even vaguely familiar with the case. Wilson, undoubtedly because he is a police officer, was allowed to testify at his own grand jury hearing, a privilege granted to pretty much no other accused at a grand jury hearing. The "you can indict a ham sandwich" statement only applies if the prosecutor wants to, which in Wilson's case it was quite clear he did not. A privilege? Ha! Most accused don't testify because their attorneys tell them not to do so, not because they aren't afforded the "privilege" of doing so. For Wilson, it certainly was a privilege. He got to tell a fairy tale, aided by a "prosecutor" with a history of protecting the police.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Dec 15, 2014 10:24:57 GMT -5
There is an old legal joke that says "you can indict a ham sandwich." In other words, the grand jury process is so heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution (no defense attorneys, no defense witnesses, no exculpatory evidence) that only an incredibly flimsy case with no real evidence doesn't return an indictment. Those private citizens who sit on the grand jury are educated on the applicable laws, rules of evidence, use of force policies, and then presented the facts and evidence of the case (autopsies, fingerprints, forensic evidence, witness statements, etc.). The fact that they didn't even feel this case warranted a trial should tell you something. The exception to that rule is when law enforcement is in front of a grand jury because of the inherent conflicts of interests between police investigating poilce action and prosecutors prosecuting police: fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 8:11:23 GMT -5
HI Hoyainspirit!
Thanks for your response. It appears that you, a majority of the black population and a sizeable chunk of the white population feel that racism plays a role in police activity in many communities. With that said, I would propose that it is of no value to debate whether this is or is not a correct perception. What is more important is to try to find steps to take to correct (or improve) that perception. Some of these steps have been taken by both the police and the communities (more training for police, and black leaders imploring citizens not to resist when placed under arrest. These are minor steps but more needs to be done. What do you think??
|
|