someone with actual knowledge of the american legal system explain to me how a grand jury could possibly conclude that there wasn't enough evidence to even begin a trial. doesn't that equally damn the possibility of wilson proving his innocence (not likely) as much as it would allow him to be convicted (more likely)?
The grand jury, over 99.9% of the time, brings the indictment the prosecutor asks for.
Which is what happened in this case.
This is incorrect. The prosecutor didn't ask for an indictment. He simply threw the whole mess into the hands of the jury.
That's highly unusual and is a good way to avoid getting an indictment while pretending that you tried.
Correct. The Prosecutor made no recommendation as to which charge should be brought, if any.
He overloaded the GJ with a mountain of evidence, then picked apart any testimony that could have led to a PC determination.
Perhaps LW meant the Prosecutor got the charge he asked for, which was none.
Either way, it's scandalous, IMO.
Yes, not only did I mean the prosecutor got the charge he asked for, it is what I said.
Here is the full quote:
"The grand jury, over 99.9% of the time, brings the indictment the prosecutor asks for.
Which is what happened in this case.
I am still reading the GJ transcript, but the first thing the prosecutor does is give the GJ the rules on when an officer can use deadly force.
I have not seen where the prosecutor gives the GJ instructions on any other charges, such as manslaughter.
The prosecutor also asks Wilson leading questions so that the testimony matches the rules. (I can't remember exactly but something along the lines of "So that is when you felt threatened?")
The truth is a criminal trial might have resulted in an innocent finding because our laws allow a police officer to fire to kill any time they feel threatened."
i guess what I was asking is, wouldn't the grand jury and subsequent trial ultimately want to arrive at a judgement one way or another? as equally upsetting as it is that we will not get a guilty/not-guilty verdict, does that mean Wilson will spend the rest of his life without pleading innocence? is it as condemning but not as cathartic that they would rather have him walk around never proving innocence in order to avoid the opposite?
and what is the hit rate of cases that go before the GJ making it to trial. in Canada's version of the grand jury theres roughly a 95% (probably higher) chance once steps have been made.
I'm curious if people here feel that a mere indictment would have been "justice" or only a guilty verdict and harsh punishment would have acheived that?
With no trial, that question can't be answered. An indictment is only the first step.
I think we all know that a trial does not guarantee a just outcome... but lack of a trial guarantees lack of a just outcome.
I think the most problematic thing about a non-indictment in cases like this is not the lack of case-specific justice... it's the reinforcement of the idea that police do not need to be held accountable for their actions. It's the justiciary equivalent of "Move along; nothing to see here...".
No evidence or investigation could be presented or conducted that would change the minds of most of you on here, of whom had made up their mind at the first glance of a headline that had the words white, cop, black, unarmed and teenager in them. From that moment on there is no search for truth, there is no waiting for an investigation, there is no weighing of physical evidence against the conflicting and contradictory eyewitness accounts. The narrative is white authority, once again, exploits black victim. And once established this narrative never ends. Victimhood is perpetuated. Truth and honesty are out the door. So blinded, one cannot let go of it no matter what the evidence says.
Now I could go on and give a detailed explanation as to how the court system works and why it is setup the way it is and the long history of jurisprudential thought. But I won't because the ones that this is directed to won't read it, or if they do, cannot comprehend it. These are the people for which logic and reason are possibly some words they came across in high school, and are now lead by emotions.
Or I could distill all the testimony and evidence in a few paragraphs, but again I won't. Because you won't read it. Your mind was already made up from the beginning. Speculation is enough for you. To reason with you would be like trying to explain how the internal combustion engine works to a cat, a complete waste of time.
Besides it can all be found online if you would bother to look. You can't be completely blamed though, because the racist media helps to perpetuate this narrative and keep the flame lit under racial animus. How, you say?
I'm going to flip it on all of you who think this was about race. Let me be clear first that there is without a doubt a tension between the police and the black community stretching back a long time. We all know that. How to address and change it is for another post. But that's not what's going on in this case.
Where is your outrage for Dillon Taylor? Who you say? That's right, the racist media doesn't report stories that don't fit their narrative. Two days after Michael Brown was shot, a black police officer shot and killed an unarmed white teenager. But wait, where is the outrage and the national press coverage? But wait, did the grand jury indict this police officer? Nope, unlike Ferguson, there was no grand jury. Because, unlike Ferguson, the district attorney didn't even bring charges. The prosecutors office declined to pursue it at all. But wait, it gets even more damning: this police officer was wearing a body cam!! And the good folks at the Salt Lake City Tribune even uploaded it to youtube for all the world to see.
I URGE you to simply google the following, Dillon Taylor body cam. Watch it for yourself, then come back on here and express your outrage. And if you don't then you will expose yourselves as the TRUE racists. No cars were burned or businesses looted because of this. You don't help yourselves or change peoples minds when you react this way. How should you react? Oh I don't know, how about simply demanding that every police department in the country be required to issue body cams to every officer. That's what reasonable people do. But you won't. Your more along the lines of MB's stepdad, and I quote, "Burn this bitch down!!"
Soulstrut's collective political leanings have been pretty well defined for as long as I have been on here. In a way the guy has a point in that I could have not logged on here at all and had someone on the street asked me A.) if there would be a thread about this on SS and B.) what the contents of the posts would be, I could have said Of course! and rattled off a pretty close approximation to exactly what the majority of these posts encompass.
I'm curious if people here feel that a mere indictment would have been "justice" or only a guilty verdict and harsh punishment would have acheived that?
Neither. An indictment + a trial that was perceived by uninterested expert observers to be fair (whatever the outcome) would be justice to me.
Do you feel there was justice in the George Zimmerman outcome?
No way, jose. But that's a totally different set of circumstances, and justice is normative.
I think there's also the issue of broader social injustice including disproportionate policing (formal and informal). So justice in the specific cases of george brown and trayvon martin are distinct from how those cases reflect justice for black americans.
No evidence or investigation could be presented or conducted that would change the minds of most of you on here, of whom had made up their mind at the first glance of a headline that had the words white, cop, black, unarmed and teenager in them. From that moment on there is no search for truth, there is no waiting for an investigation, there is no weighing of physical evidence against the conflicting and contradictory eyewitness accounts. The narrative is white authority, once again, exploits black victim. And once established this narrative never ends. Victimhood is perpetuated. Truth and honesty are out the door. So blinded, one cannot let go of it no matter what the evidence says.
Now I could go on and give a detailed explanation as to how the court system works and why it is setup the way it is and the long history of jurisprudential thought. But I won't because the ones that this is directed to won't read it, or if they do, cannot comprehend it. These are the people for which logic and reason are possibly some words they came across in high school, and are now lead by emotions.
Or I could distill all the testimony and evidence in a few paragraphs, but again I won't. Because you won't read it. Your mind was already made up from the beginning. Speculation is enough for you. To reason with you would be like trying to explain how the internal combustion engine works to a cat, a complete waste of time.
Besides it can all be found online if you would bother to look. You can't be completely blamed though, because the racist media helps to perpetuate this narrative and keep the flame lit under racial animus. How, you say?
I'm going to flip it on all of you who think this was about race. Let me be clear first that there is without a doubt a tension between the police and the black community stretching back a long time. We all know that. How to address and change it is for another post. But that's not what's going on in this case.
Where is your outrage for Dillon Taylor? Who you say? That's right, the racist media doesn't report stories that don't fit their narrative. Two days after Michael Brown was shot, a black police officer shot and killed an unarmed white teenager. But wait, where is the outrage and the national press coverage? But wait, did the grand jury indict this police officer? Nope, unlike Ferguson, there was no grand jury. Because, unlike Ferguson, the district attorney didn't even bring charges. The prosecutors office declined to pursue it at all. But wait, it gets even more damning: this police officer was wearing a body cam!! And the good folks at the Salt Lake City Tribune even uploaded it to youtube for all the world to see.
I URGE you to simply google the following, Dillon Taylor body cam. Watch it for yourself, then come back on here and express your outrage. And if you don't then you will expose yourselves as the TRUE racists. No cars were burned or businesses looted because of this. You don't help yourselves or change peoples minds when you react this way. How should you react? Oh I don't know, how about simply demanding that every police department in the country be required to issue body cams to every officer. That's what reasonable people do. But you won't. Your more along the lines of MB's stepdad, and I quote, "Burn this bitch down!!"
Wow. Welcome to Soulstrut 2014.
I think Zilla posted the same thing at Stormfront.
I don't believe It's that difficult for anyone to think of a conflict situation they've witnessed, that had had at least one party exercised some common sense that a more agreeable outcome was not only to be expected but logically required.
Let's step back for a second because this issue seems not to be addressed because it's assumed to be common sense, and therefore innate and not taught. In contrast and in practice at least as far as authority and the law goes, a lot of people seem to be armchair lawyers and / or cocky-provocateurs.
In many ways we've all been supplementally educated because of the internet age. You don't have to attend college courses anymore to obtain access to many truthful sources of knowledge, but let's just focus here on the domain of the law. I want to be brief and compact here. I will try not to delve into minutiae or too much history. Though I think it's very enlightening to do so. You'll gain much more respect and admiration for the ones who've gone before you if you follow the trail of logic and thought and the real, documented, historical cases that leads to our current legal system.
In many youtube videos and anecdotal accounts and even firsthand encounters you will observe some common themes and statements. Yes, you don't have to identify yourself simply because an officer asks you that, and yes you can ask to move on at anytime, in other words, you can ask whether you're being detained or free to go at any point, and then be on your way.
But here's the rub: all of this is permissible and generally expected in normal civil discourse, an officer can ask and expect you to reply to their questions. He can stop you and demand an explanation for your behavior and to identify yourself. All this is common sense and common practice.
But, Legally, yet, crucially, he can't detain you without probable cause. He can't demand that you identify yourself without probable cause. And unless he has probable cause that you have committed a crime and by the way that standard is very low, there is no case. And right there we depart from what a lot of you know, trust, and believe, and the reality of life and the reality of the court system.
To be blunt, a police officer can arrest you right now, for no obvious or legal reason and place you in a metal cage, for, at the very least, hours of time, and more likely days depending on your attitude. With no case, no real probable cause other than what he says happened. That's it. Surprised? You shouldn't be if you have a little common sense or a tincture of thought in how bureaucratic, human, and authoritarian enterprises are run.
So You're in jail, at least probably overnight. Where's your car?, probably towed. No car, what about your personal property or effects, who knows? You're in the lion's den. Will you be charged, probably not. You'll be released tomorrow, charges dropped. What?, yes they can arrest you, put you in a cage for hours or days and then just say, hey just kidding, there was not really a case after all, so free to go! Or you can go before a judge who in a courtroom, the place where all your legal education obtained in the academia or internet or elsewhere should really be played out, will say case dismissed.
Now depending on your situation or time of month, you could have missed you rent payment or a promising job interview or many other things that race through your mind.
And if so perturbed over an unlawful arrest, you displayed rowdiness in jail, you may now be at the point where a criminal record is beginning to be recorded. And this record will follow you every where you go and be present at every job interview you ever try to take.
So for not remembering at least outside the courtroom, that ultimately you're dealing with a human being, this police officer, you decline to answer their requests, you mock their authority, you challenge their restraint, you question their knowledge and adherence to the law, all because, "I know my rights". And then you find yourself handcuffed, roughed up, and on to jail. Now imagine circumstances had things been different.
You do have rights. In the law as written. You can adjudicate offenses to your rights IN a court of law, not on the street. You will ultimately decide everything in a court, and probably be vindicated IN A COURT. Not on the street with a police officer. Comply, be cordial, be respectful. And dispute it in court, with no case, nothing will stand.
Besides, say you were being completely and unjustly and prejudiciously railroaded by the cops, is the street the best format to overturn this? Isn't this why MLK preached nonviolence and civil rights in civil court? Because he knew that the best disinfectant for wrong is daylight. That to present and expose this in full view of the public, that no decent human authority despite dogma cannot stand opposed to this.
In other words, if the focus is shifted from mocking, combativeness, and displays of machismo and male bravado and alpha male resistance to an authority figure, towards conducting ones self like one does on, it seems best, celebratory occasions,like graduation, birthdays, and church, then I think situations like MB would be extremely rare. And I think that one should not be surprised if you assault a police officer, you reach for his gun after committing a felony, you struggle while he's still in his car in broad daylight, you punch him, then back up, then charge again, that in that 40 seconds of time, that there isn't a police officer in America who would not have acted in the same way. But, I could be wrong,
It's just that all the physical evidence (along with eyewitness accounts) corroborates his story. Physical evidence by definition cannot lie. It can misinterpreted, yes, but It is what it is. Either DW, five years an officer, who has never discharged his weapon before, decides in 20 seconds to begin to kill, an innocent black male from his drivers seat, who we know just committed a felony, a strong arm robbery minutes before, which we now know through testimony that DW suspected and was aware of the situation through police transcripts of radio dispatches that were broadcast with physical descriptions beforehand, that he also knew that there were 2 black suspects, and he only chose to kill one. Dorian Johnson escaped DW's wrath, despite being within inches of MB on the double yellow line 20 seconds beforehand.
Darren Wilson and the Ferguson PD target innocent black males in broad daylight, in order to kill one of them, so that there's another eyewitness to escape, beyond all the others in the neighborhood at noon whose attention is called through gunshots and shouts long after the initial confrontation occurs to bear eyewitness to this spectacle.
Are you kidding me? Does this not strain the limits of your credulity?
And if not, are you not embarrassed that this case, THIS CASE becomes the flashpoint in American racial relations in the 21st century?
Sorry for grammatical mistakes, I rushed this with minimal review.
"People should be prosecuted if they engage in criminal acts"
Including the police?
Absolutely, 100% of the time
Please name 3 case where you think cops that were either acquitted or not prosecuted at all should have been convicted.
You must be a lawyer
I said they should be prosecuted 100% of the time if they broke the law
If they were acquitted they were prosecuted
I believe Officer Wilson should have been indicted and prosecuted....our legal system didn't agree.
That does not mean I think he should have been convicted.
Unless I'm on a jury and presented with all the evidence I can not tell you whether or not "I" think someone should be convicted or not.
If you're asking me to convict people strictly based on media reporting I believe NYPD officers Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss all should have been convicted. If I had been on the jury and privy to information not presented in the media, I can't guarantee you I'd feel the same way
I'm curious if people here feel that a mere indictment would have been "justice" or only a guilty verdict and harsh punishment would have acheived that?
Neither. An indictment + a trial that was perceived by uninterested expert observers to be fair (whatever the outcome) would be justice to me.
Do you feel there was justice in the George Zimmerman outcome?
No way, jose. But that's a totally different set of circumstances, and justice is normative.
I think there's also the issue of broader social injustice including disproportionate policing (formal and informal). So justice in the specific cases of george brown and trayvon martin are distinct from how those cases reflect justice for black americans.
What you think, Rock?
The point I was trying to make is that while an indictment and prosecution is part of our Justice System, that alone does not accomplish what many feel is true justice. In concept and intent our Justice System is blind but it will never be without flaws.
The justice that's served is not always the justice the citizens want or agree with.
The point I was trying to make is that while an indictment and prosecution is part of our Justice System, that alone does not accomplish what many feel is true justice. In concept and intent our Justice System is blind but it will never be without flaws.
The justice that's served is not always the justice the citizens want or agree with.
the use of force definition provided by the asst prosecutor was a 1979 law, ruled unconstitutional in 1985, which stated that police could use force against fleeing suspects. Not only is this not the law but has not been the law as long as the asst prosecutor has been practicing.
Michael Brown was half a football field away from Darren Wilson when he was killed.
"People should be prosecuted if they engage in criminal acts"
Including the police?
Absolutely, 100% of the time
Please name 3 case where you think cops that were either acquitted or not prosecuted at all should have been convicted.
You must be a lawyer
I said they should be prosecuted 100% of the time if they broke the law
If they were acquitted they were prosecuted
I believe Officer Wilson should have been indicted and prosecuted....our legal system didn't agree.
That does not mean I think he should have been convicted.
Unless I'm on a jury and presented with all the evidence I can not tell you whether or not "I" think someone should be convicted or not.
If you're asking me to convict people strictly based on media reporting I believe NYPD officers Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss all should have been convicted. If I had been on the jury and privy to information not presented in the media, I can't guarantee you I'd feel the same way
Well, at least you could come up with one. I don't know what magical information you think the jury was given that wasn't made public in a highly publicized trial, but concluding that they were acquitted because they were blue and the corpse wasn't doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
I suppose it's something that those hair-trigger morons were even prosecuted.
Michael Brown was half a football field away from Darren Wilson when he was killed.
Were you there to witness this or are you repeating shit you read in the internet (while high on marijuana) You do realize that it is quite unlikely that Darren Wilson could have shot Michael Brown at 60 yards with a pistol. And obviously the physical evidence of the autopsy supports a close range engagement.
Not so obviously, since there is no evidence of powder burns. Significantly, the pathologist hired by the Brown family wasn't given access to his clothes. Isn't that special? It's the sort of detail that gives cop groupies additional dickwidth.
So the new shape of racism is the automatic assumption that a white cop is at fault because he shoots a black teenager. Because black people cannot be at fault because that would be racist.
Don't be stupid, if you can manage it. No one here is making such an assertion. But in shooting after shooting after shooting the first thing we hear from police departments is the automatic assertion that the cop/killer did the right thing. In our society that's the "automatic assumption" being made by most people.
And of course you have no problem with that.
Why is the US the only advanced industrial nation that has a problem like this? A cop killing ANYONE should be a rare event. A cop killing an unarmed person should be almost unheard of. Lunatics are shooting up movie theaters and political rallies and they're being taken alive, but worthless cops all over the country can't take a deep breath and avoid killing people with no weapons?
And you think it's awesome. Are you George Zimmerman?
You are living in an out of control police state where cops can get away with pretty much anything unless they get involved with organized crime on a too obvious level. I'm not sure if the supporters of law, order and "justice" grasp how this fact affects them as much as everybody else. It's like watching some obese minimal wage, mobile home dwelling teabagger fight against taxation of the super rich or healthcare for the disenfranchised (like themselves) but yeah, I guess if you're stupid enough, it could seem like a good deal to give up your most important rights and liberties in order to be living in the most freest country on the planet. Doesn't really matter either way, it's all about sitting back, enjoying the shit show and letting everybody play themselves... carry on.
Why is the US the only advanced industrial nation that has a problem like this?
Guns are too easy to get in the US and its citizens are among the most frustrated, entitled, angry, and paranoid people on the planet.
Well, yeah, but I mean the problem of amped-up bacon killing unarmed citizens and witless citizens accepting it as "normal." Which it shouldn't be in a civil society.
Comments
Yes, not only did I mean the prosecutor got the charge he asked for, it is what I said.
Here is the full quote:
"The grand jury, over 99.9% of the time, brings the indictment the prosecutor asks for.
Which is what happened in this case.
I am still reading the GJ transcript, but the first thing the prosecutor does is give the GJ the rules on when an officer can use deadly force.
I have not seen where the prosecutor gives the GJ instructions on any other charges, such as manslaughter.
The prosecutor also asks Wilson leading questions so that the testimony matches the rules. (I can't remember exactly but something along the lines of "So that is when you felt threatened?")
The truth is a criminal trial might have resulted in an innocent finding because our laws allow a police officer to fire to kill any time they feel threatened."
I think we all know that a trial does not guarantee a just outcome... but lack of a trial guarantees lack of a just outcome.
I think the most problematic thing about a non-indictment in cases like this is not the lack of case-specific justice... it's the reinforcement of the idea that police do not need to be held accountable for their actions. It's the justiciary equivalent of "Move along; nothing to see here...".
Wow. Welcome to Soulstrut 2014.
Soulstrut's collective political leanings have been pretty well defined for as long as I have been on here. In a way the guy has a point in that I could have not logged on here at all and had someone on the street asked me A.) if there would be a thread about this on SS and B.) what the contents of the posts would be, I could have said Of course! and rattled off a pretty close approximation to exactly what the majority of these posts encompass.
No way, jose. But that's a totally different set of circumstances, and justice is normative.
I think there's also the issue of broader social injustice including disproportionate policing (formal and informal). So justice in the specific cases of george brown and trayvon martin are distinct from how those cases reflect justice for black americans.
What you think, Rock?
You could not possibly be more wrong. He has made himself the frontrunner in the next Missouri Governor race or Senate race if he's interested.
After your Romney and Perry debacles you should probably refrain from political predictions. You're really, really bad at that game.
Please name 3 case where you think cops that were either acquitted or not prosecuted at all should have been convicted.
I think Zilla posted the same thing at Stormfront.
I don't believe It's that difficult for anyone to think of a conflict situation they've witnessed, that had had at least one party exercised some common sense that a more agreeable outcome was not only to be expected but logically required.
Let's step back for a second because this issue seems not to be addressed because it's assumed to be common sense, and therefore innate and not taught. In contrast and in practice at least as far as authority and the law goes, a lot of people seem to be armchair lawyers and / or cocky-provocateurs.
In many ways we've all been supplementally educated because of the internet age. You don't have to attend college courses anymore to obtain access to many truthful sources of knowledge, but let's just focus here on the domain of the law. I want to be brief and compact here. I will try not to delve into minutiae or too much history. Though I think it's very enlightening to do so. You'll gain much more respect and admiration for the ones who've gone before you if you follow the trail of logic and thought and the real, documented, historical cases that leads to our current legal system.
In many youtube videos and anecdotal accounts and even firsthand encounters you will observe some common themes and statements. Yes, you don't have to identify yourself simply because an officer asks you that, and yes you can ask to move on at anytime, in other words, you can ask whether you're being detained or free to go at any point, and then be on your way.
But here's the rub: all of this is permissible and generally expected in normal civil discourse, an officer can ask and expect you to reply to their questions. He can stop you and demand an explanation for your behavior and to identify yourself. All this is common sense and common practice.
But, Legally, yet, crucially, he can't detain you without probable cause. He can't demand that you identify yourself without probable cause. And unless he has probable cause that you have committed a crime and by the way that standard is very low, there is no case. And right there we depart from what a lot of you know, trust, and believe, and the reality of life and the reality of the court system.
To be blunt, a police officer can arrest you right now, for no obvious or legal reason and place you in a metal cage, for, at the very least, hours of time, and more likely days depending on your attitude. With no case, no real probable cause other than what he says happened. That's it. Surprised? You shouldn't be if you have a little common sense or a tincture of thought in how bureaucratic, human, and authoritarian enterprises are run.
So You're in jail, at least probably overnight. Where's your car?, probably towed. No car, what about your personal property or effects, who knows? You're in the lion's den. Will you be charged, probably not. You'll be released tomorrow, charges dropped. What?, yes they can arrest you, put you in a cage for hours or days and then just say, hey just kidding, there was not really a case after all, so free to go! Or you can go before a judge who in a courtroom, the place where all your legal education obtained in the academia or internet or elsewhere should really be played out, will say case dismissed.
Now depending on your situation or time of month, you could have missed you rent payment or a promising job interview or many other things that race through your mind.
And if so perturbed over an unlawful arrest, you displayed rowdiness in jail, you may now be at the point where a criminal record is beginning to be recorded. And this record will follow you every where you go and be present at every job interview you ever try to take.
So for not remembering at least outside the courtroom, that ultimately you're dealing with a human being, this police officer, you decline to answer their requests, you mock their authority, you challenge their restraint, you question their knowledge and adherence to the law, all because, "I know my rights". And then you find yourself handcuffed, roughed up, and on to jail. Now imagine circumstances had things been different.
You do have rights. In the law as written. You can adjudicate offenses to your rights IN a court of law, not on the street. You will ultimately decide everything in a court, and probably be vindicated IN A COURT. Not on the street with a police officer. Comply, be cordial, be respectful. And dispute it in court, with no case, nothing will stand.
Besides, say you were being completely and unjustly and prejudiciously railroaded by the cops, is the street the best format to overturn this? Isn't this why MLK preached nonviolence and civil rights in civil court? Because he knew that the best disinfectant for wrong is daylight. That to present and expose this in full view of the public, that no decent human authority despite dogma cannot stand opposed to this.
In other words, if the focus is shifted from mocking, combativeness, and displays of machismo and male bravado and alpha male resistance to an authority figure, towards conducting ones self like one does on, it seems best, celebratory occasions,like graduation, birthdays, and church, then I think situations like MB would be extremely rare. And I think that one should not be surprised if you assault a police officer, you reach for his gun after committing a felony, you struggle while he's still in his car in broad daylight, you punch him, then back up, then charge again, that in that 40 seconds of time, that there isn't a police officer in America who would not have acted in the same way. But, I could be wrong,
It's just that all the physical evidence (along with eyewitness accounts) corroborates his story. Physical evidence by definition cannot lie. It can misinterpreted, yes, but It is what it is. Either DW, five years an officer, who has never discharged his weapon before, decides in 20 seconds to begin to kill, an innocent black male from his drivers seat, who we know just committed a felony, a strong arm robbery minutes before, which we now know through testimony that DW suspected and was aware of the situation through police transcripts of radio dispatches that were broadcast with physical descriptions beforehand, that he also knew that there were 2 black suspects, and he only chose to kill one. Dorian Johnson escaped DW's wrath, despite being within inches of MB on the double yellow line 20 seconds beforehand.
Darren Wilson and the Ferguson PD target innocent black males in broad daylight, in order to kill one of them, so that there's another eyewitness to escape, beyond all the others in the neighborhood at noon whose attention is called through gunshots and shouts long after the initial confrontation occurs to bear eyewitness to this spectacle.
Are you kidding me? Does this not strain the limits of your credulity?
And if not, are you not embarrassed that this case, THIS CASE becomes the flashpoint in American racial relations in the 21st century?
Sorry for grammatical mistakes, I rushed this with minimal review.
The sheer fucking irony of people who fetishize Black culture/music etc. and have zero insight or empathy of the actual situation is mind boggling.
Enjoy the circlejerk.
Do you really (and I mean REALLY) not understand the overall narrative here? This is indicative of a much greater problem.
Also, wtf are you even talking about? You just spewed a bunch of unrelated shit and regurgitated a one sided depiction of the events without question.
You must be a lawyer
I said they should be prosecuted 100% of the time if they broke the law
If they were acquitted they were prosecuted
I believe Officer Wilson should have been indicted and prosecuted....our legal system didn't agree.
That does not mean I think he should have been convicted.
Unless I'm on a jury and presented with all the evidence I can not tell you whether or not "I" think someone should be convicted or not.
If you're asking me to convict people strictly based on media reporting I believe NYPD officers Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss all should have been convicted. If I had been on the jury and privy to information not presented in the media, I can't guarantee you I'd feel the same way
The point I was trying to make is that while an indictment and prosecution is part of our Justice System, that alone does not accomplish what many feel is true justice. In concept and intent our Justice System is blind but it will never be without flaws.
The justice that's served is not always the justice the citizens want or agree with.
I smell you on that.
Michael Brown was half a football field away from Darren Wilson when he was killed.
Well, at least you could come up with one. I don't know what magical information you think the jury was given that wasn't made public in a highly publicized trial, but concluding that they were acquitted because they were blue and the corpse wasn't doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
I suppose it's something that those hair-trigger morons were even prosecuted.
Not so obviously, since there is no evidence of powder burns. Significantly, the pathologist hired by the Brown family wasn't given access to his clothes. Isn't that special? It's the sort of detail that gives cop groupies additional dickwidth.
Don't be stupid, if you can manage it. No one here is making such an assertion. But in shooting after shooting after shooting the first thing we hear from police departments is the automatic assertion that the cop/killer did the right thing. In our society that's the "automatic assumption" being made by most people.
And of course you have no problem with that.
Why is the US the only advanced industrial nation that has a problem like this? A cop killing ANYONE should be a rare event. A cop killing an unarmed person should be almost unheard of. Lunatics are shooting up movie theaters and political rallies and they're being taken alive, but worthless cops all over the country can't take a deep breath and avoid killing people with no weapons?
And you think it's awesome. Are you George Zimmerman?
Bonus points to Dickbreath for the funny alias.
Guns are too easy to get in the US and its citizens are among the most frustrated, entitled, angry, and paranoid people on the planet.
Well, yeah, but I mean the problem of amped-up bacon killing unarmed citizens and witless citizens accepting it as "normal." Which it shouldn't be in a civil society.