Good narrative. The mob that rioted was not the people of ferguson. People like Michael Browns father were ourtside anarchists.
It was always a lynch mob from the beginning, they hadn't gotten violent until after they found out that they weren't getting the blood they were after, but that doesn't change what they were. If the state treated them like what they actually were instead of buying in to the delusion that they were "peaceful protesters" then the whole thing could have been prevented. As I said before, they should have issued a 7 o clock curfew, used the state police and national guard to clear the streets of the lynch mob and then announced the findings of the grand jury at 9. Had they done it that way, there would have been no riot and Brown's stepfather wouldn't have had the opportunity to order people to burn the town.
Agreed. They should have treated those stupid people like stupid people instead of appealing to reason, evidence, and logic. By treating those morons like intelligent people, they helped create an atmosphere where that kind of stupidity could thrive. If they treated them like the lawless criminals they are, then the town would have been saved. I'm glad we could agree in the end.
I don't think police repression in a case that had a theme of police vs community is a particularly great idea. I wouldn't characterize that as a smart solution. In many ways, it was how this controversy began. I prefer my approach. We'll have to agree to disagree.
A version of your approach is how the town was burned, they treated the mob as if they were intelligent, peaceful, law abiding people....which was a mistake because they clearly were the furthest thing from that. People like that are why we have police in the first place, they are the people that need repressing. Also of note, the stupid people that gave a case where a criminal attacked a cop and got himself killed a theme of "police vs community" are basically the entire problem. They identified with the criminal and to them he is a good representative of the community....if I was in that community I would be fairly upset by that because I'm sure it's not a community comprised of thieves who attack police no matter how bad it is.
Grand jury proceedings are closed. Preliminary hearings are open. This was not a preliminary hearing and did not function as one. I personally know a prosecutor that has presented exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, so this is not some radical concept that has never been done before. This is a nation of laws, not of men. The fact that 70,000 people didn't want this prosecutor on the case is irrelevant. If there was some legal reason to remove him from the case, that could have been done. If there was not, then he can stay one. Simple as that. Unless the handout was presented to the grand jury and the state of the law was not made clear to them before they made their decision, that has no bearing on the case. Prosecutor's statements to the media have nothing to do with their ability to impartially do their job and could be made for any number of reasons. So long as they are not violating any ethical rules (a big one is poisoning the jury pool) that has no bearing on the case. Justice Scalia noted that the defendant has no right to testify. The prosecutor can certainly present the defendant's testimony if he is willing to provide it. Ethically, what the prosecutor should have done was decline the charges out of the gate. The grand jury and subsequent revelation of all the evidence was done to show the people that it is not a single white guy letting the cop off the hook, the evidence simply would not support a conviction. It is unfortunate that the people in Ferguson were not willing to take a dispassionate look at it and come to the same conclusion. The prosecutor released everything to the public, via the media.
If he feared for his life then he should have waited for backup after Michael Brown fled after the initial shot. The escalation was him putting himself into the position of having to kill Michael Brown by chasing after him with no backup. If Michael Brown was so big and imposing that shooting him was the only option, what was he going to do if he caught him? I don't find that criminal, I just find it to be bad judgment in the heat of the moment. I don't care why he doesn't have a job (fired/quit/etc.). He isn't a cop anymore which is sufficient "punishment" in my opinion.
The length of proceedings, and the full breadth of evidence presented suggest otherwise. This certainly did not function like a regular grand jury, but rather a showpiece that McCullough ensured would be the final step in the judicial process. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120422/bob-mcculloch-abused-grand-jury-process-ferguson Just because Snyder v Phelps gives me the right to inflame a community with picket signs doesn't mean I have to exercise that right. If you think community uproar about a poisoned past is "irrelevant" to why there's so much outrage now, that's fine, but I maintain that is improper, and the worst course of action. Any opportunity at reconciliation was lost up to and including the St Louis police's statements attacking the Rams for exercising their First Amendment Rights. It's like score-settling has become the name of the game. He has the legal authority to be a score-settler, doesn't mean that's helping anything. ...this is exactly what I said, the handout was presented to the Grand Jury, and the state of the law was relayed vaguely to them 2 months later. You can maintain that, except that the larger context of that case also shows that McCullough moved the grand jury to accept that the car was going forward based on 3 out of 13 witnesses---until he was disproved by a later federal investigation. It seems he likes to bend grand juries to disparate conclusions---especially in cases where unarmed people are killed by police. That has immense bearing on his ability to impartially do his job.
So if the cop had been equally or even more physically imposing than Brown himself, it might have turned out differently?
http://kdvr.com/2014/11/30/police-g...r-players-use-gesture-from-ferguson-protests/ Why are the police force demanding that the NFL apologize and punish those players for having their hands up when they can just shoot them and probably get a million dollars for doing so.
No, the group is just exercising their freedom of speech, speaking out against the players for being ignorant and making a public spectacle of themselves. Personally I wouldn't stress about the actions of a handful of obviously foolish NFL players, if they want to embarrass themselves, let them.
It's because that same organization, the St. Louis Rams, wanted the police to guarantee the safety of the stadium, players, and fans. The Rams asked for the police department's protection, then had a few of its members, who represent the organization, mock the police department publicly on TV. Looks pretty bad.
So your saying the player don't have the same right to exercise there freedom of speech the player aren't ignorant as you call them they have the right to show how they feel about the issue just as you do you have shown nothing but a biased onesided view of the issue not once seeing the real problem with what has been going on for decades that black americans don't get the same justice as white americans.
The players have the right to embarrass themselves, and other people have the right to make fun of them or call them out for it. As to the issue, it's about as clear cut an issue as you will find in life but for whatever reason people are trying to complicate it. A criminal robbed a store then attacked a cop and got shot as a result. End of story.....or rather it would be the end of the story if not for a bunch of nonsense about "hands up, don't shoot". For some, a catchy, rhyming phrase matters more than overwhelming evidence....after all, that's how OJ got off. "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".
OJ got a trial where the evidence was shown correctly were the jury was given the correct information on how to proceed with the case.
OJ also committed a crime, thus it went to trial, Wilson did not commit a crime, thus it did not go to trial. I honestly don't see what is so difficult to understand about this.
