The New York Times has put up a sort of synopsis about the case that is pretty good. Has charts showing where stuff happened, relative position of the car, the shell casings, and the body, etc. Also shows the locations of the bullet wounds on Brown's body. If people don't want to dig through all of the documents, not a bad resource to start with.
So what? I'm sure you can find all sorts of people that think all sorts of stupid things, it doesn't really prove anything. Governor Nixon is also who is to blame for the national guard being pulled back on the first day allowing the lynch mob to burn the town....he's not the sharpest peanut in the turd. It wasn't a new precedent, they just chose not to bias the information in this case. Honestly even going to a grand jury was out of the ordinary considering there really was no case against Wilson. It would have been sticking with precedent if the prosecutor didn't even waste time with a grand jury on a case this weak.....but he was trying to appease the lynch mob. He honestly shouldn't have wasted his time, there was nothing short of convicting an innocent man that would have made them happy.
Everyone decries violence, that's normal everywhere. Osama Bin Laden decried violence. ISIS decries violence. George Bush decried violence. Obama decries violence. It's a tired old game. Violence is not a source problem, it's the outcome of a source problem, even if we disagree about that the source of that violence is. It is excellent that people are offering to reimburse damaged businesses. The fact that you are adversarial and diverse does not necessarily mean you are not working together. However, you are not working together. And you are adversarial. Working together means that if there is political discourse regarding how to deal with this matter, there should be a variety of people with input into the solution, and it also means that those people should not be taking an "opposed to the other side" stand. The fact that good-hearted regular folks are getting together and sending some semblance of support to Ferguson does not mean that the representative arm of citizens - i.e. government institutions - are working together and that's the most necessary and most substantive form of support. This case is a microcosm of everything that happens. A serious issue rumbles on for years. It blows over. The media covers it. Picks it apart. Finds an angle which suits their corporate sponsors. People who subscribe to two parties - who in total barely represent 30% of Americans - fight over that angle. The other 70%, totally disenfranchised by the political system, get together and resort to their own kindness to aid the situation. Doesn't help enough. Debates about socio-economic issues? Take place everyday, in public, even widely broadcasted. Protests? No way, it wouldn't. That's not a good thing. Nor does the population have any influence over it. How does it have anything to do with this? FYI: in most countries in the world, this debate and these protests would be equally "allowed" to happen. It's not a huge achievement, unless you are comparing with literally the worst example on earth.
In response to treeman's question of whether a prosecutor should seek an indictment when he does not believe that a crime has occurred: To do so would violate the ethical duty of the prosecutor. Mad Max put forward the notion that the prosecutor should prosecute, the defense attorney defend, and justice comes from this process. That is in fact not our system. The prosecutor has special ethical responsibilities that no other attorney has, the responsibility to seek justice. ABA model rule 3.8(a) states it thus: A number of states have their own ethics rules that follow along the same path, Missouri uses the model rule as given. Ultimately, the case should not have been given to the grand jury, it should have been dismissed outright. Were it to proceed to the grand jury anyway as an attempt to appease the mob, the prosecutor was ethically bound not to push for a prosecution.
---This point is all good and well, but irrelevant to my argumentation to whether the "best course of action" was taken in this case and how it was not "improper" in any way, especially given who the prosecutor was---that was the original point of contention, and it always should have been. I maintained from the beginning that closed proceedings with no precedent, led by a prosecutor whose impartiality had been questioned was not in any way a good course of action, never mind the best one. Somewhere along later I had to specify many times that I had no qualms with the outcome, but many with the procedure, and specified again, and again why that was---until Treeman realized what I was actually arguing for. Before that, Treeman, seeking some sort of gotcha moment, asked me a bunch of loaded questions that were irrelevant to my line of argumentation. When he finally turned that to one question, in order to demonstrate the complete irrelevance of what he was asking, I answered yes so he could freak out. Of course, I later on compared this "tactic" of argumentation to, out of the blue, asking why you or Treeman are members of the KKK. And it took him about a few posts before he actually did freak. I honestly don't know why this point was brought up in the first place. You posting this serves as more information, good stuff---but it doesn't tackle the blunt of what I think went wrong with proceedings.
Are you alleging that the prosecutor wasn't impartial? Are you suggesting that proceedings in the open with a different prosecutor and only a judge to decide to not indict would have prevented the lynch mob from burning the town and from being upset about not getting the blood they were after? Honestly, the people who are upset about this would have been upset as long as the ruling was just, the ONLY thing that would have made them happy is if they'd have railroaded Wilson and put an innocent man behind bars....even then they'd have probably been upset with the length of the sentence unless they put him to death.
This needs to be quoted. I can't believe this thread is still going so strong. But Northside Storm is at least bringing up arguments that have some merit. He shouldn't be told to stop. ATW whines and cries in almost every thread about how people want him to stop posting 24/7 about Islam, but then he's gonna sit here and insult someone for no reason while telling them to stop posting. No wonder so many think people think he's a dick.
No he isn't. And you aren't either. Oh really? Most people? Maybe you should read his post I responded to, True Beaner?
1) yes 2) I would say things would be better, I don't know how much better. The final paragraph is a pretty heavy assumption, and because our assumptions are vastly different on this topic, I don't think we could debate on this productively.
It's really not much of an assumption though, the evidence came out largely confirming the officer's story and they still rioted when justice was served. IMO if they had a judge rule to not indict instead of the people, they'd b**** about that even more than they are now. Out of curiosity, what assumptions do you make that you think are so vastly different from what I've taken directly from the evidence?
i don't think that there would be as many protests and violence if proceedings were different. You assume this isn't the case, and that people would only be happy if Wilson was executed. I could see why you think that way, but it would be near impossible for me to dissuade you of that via forum posts, so I won't try.
I think you should try anyway. So long as you have some sort of solid basis for that belief, I'd be willing to listen. If it's just a feeling or whatever, then...yeah, that's not going to convince many. IMO I have a fairly solid basis for believing that they'd only be happy with a conviction in that the evidence that he was innocent of any crime wasn't enough to stop the rioting. What basis is there to suggest that they'd be more civilized due to procedural change? Furthermore, would a judge issuing a no bill in an open proceeding be enough or would there have to be a trial no matter what?
If you look at the response to the proceedings, there are already many who have indicated how it proceeded certainly stoked tensions. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/28/ferguson-jury-michael-brown-verdict
Okay, I'll respond to that then. It WAS the obvious conclusion based on the evidence, how else was he supposed to react? Those allegations are pretty weak though and based on the evidence, he shouldn't have even gone to a grand jury to begin with, if anything he was doing the officer a disservice by not simply tossing the case out immediately. He tried to explain the actual evidence and separate the lies from the facts. Many DID lie when they told reporters that Brown had surrendered. Many lied when they said he was shot in the back. It's not the prosecutors fault that a lot of people lied to feed the narrative that the cop mistreated Brown. A lot of people out in the crowd were operating on bogint as indicated by the whole "hands up don't shoot" nonsense....he was trying to separate fact from fiction, they decided they liked fiction better. The intention was to announce it late in the day were the fewest number of innocents would get caught up in the rioting that would inevitably happen, stupid people are REALLY predictable, if the Governor hadn't bungled the situation by keeping the national guard back, they wouldn't have been allowed to burn the town. Maybe it would have been better to announce things at 8 am when most of the would be rioters would still be in bed, either way, it doesn't excuse their actions and their actions certainly aren't his fault. No, Louis Head, Micheal Brown's stepfather incited a riot when he ordered the mob to burn the town....they complied. I appreciate the link and the article, but I think their narrative is misguided and places blame on the wrong people. The victims in this case are Officer Wilson and the innocent people of Furguson. A criminal attacked a police officer after robbing a store and the result was more criminals burning their town.
I have a total of one post in this thread. I'm obviously not bringing any arguments. Kudos on that one. Air Langhi nor Northside Storm deserve to be on the brunt end of your "I'm the smartest guy in the room, everyone else who has different views is so dumb!" complex. Stop being an *******.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ferguson Officer Who Shot Michael Brown Resigns <a href="http://t.co/kSXNEOwS26">http://t.co/kSXNEOwS26</a></p>— billboard (@billboard) <a href="https://twitter.com/billboard/status/538872519085002753">November 30, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BREAKING: Attorney: Ferguson officer Darren Wilson resigns in wake of fatal shooting of Michael Brown.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/538837161400090624">November 29, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I've just got to say, it's a bit difficult to believe that someone who can't even bother himself to look at the evidence of a case is actually serious about seeing justice served in that case. Seems as if someone who was actually concerned about seeing actual justice prevail might want to find out what the evidence says. They might be a bit curious as to why the grand jury arrived at the decision they did. No, what's important is the process, not the substance. As always. It's sorta like this. Your team is getting blown out in the 4th quarter, the last play was a questionable call and cost you a 3 point play. But you lost by 22. You spend all of your post-game time complaining about how the refs screwed you on that call and you lost the game for it. Will anyone feel sorry for you? Not me.
Why is this thread still going...? Trayvon Martin I can understand, but Michael Brown's case seems pretty damned cut and dry.
