Michael Brown Case

[RogueIce]

They better have an excellent explanation ready for how they arrived at that position.

It's been stated the proceedings will be made available to the public in full in this case. That may be enlightening (I certainly hope it is).

http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson ... dence.html

Here you go on the evidence. They're still in the process of updating (I think) so there may be more to come in the following days.

[Thanas]

A trial is far preferable because then you get to see all the evidence in public. Here, it is essentially the mercy of the DA who can weaken or strengthen the case at will. I have no faith in the public authorities of that district given how they handled stuff in the past.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I have no faith in the reliability or trustworthiness of the facts released by the group that's been effectively accused of wrong-doing.


If they'd decided to indict, that wouldn't have been a guilty verdict. That would be a "You're having your day in court."

From even a PR perspective, what would be better? Refusing to even have a trial? Or having a trial (even one that turns into a media circus) and being able to point to it and say "A dozen of his own peers concluded that Darren Wilson acted within reason by killing Michael Brown." If the case for Darren Wilson is that goddamn strong then why not go to trial and show it?

By refusing to even have a day in court it makes it look like they're hiding something. Maybe Mike Brown was charging Darren Wilson after having fled because trying to steal Wilson's gun turned out to be a mighty fine way to get shot, and then he decided "Fuck this pig, I'll show him!" I don't know, and I don't have any sources of information I trust to be sufficiently reliable to credit them for anything. Nonetheless, when they respond the way they have it gives the exact wrong impression to everyone.



Whether or not you believe Mike Brown "deserved" to get shot, keep in mind the history between blacks and law enforcement in the US. There is a very, very strong perception that cops are the enemy because, well, just look at the statistics. Blacks are targeted for traffic stops, searches, and pretty much everything else at a far greater rate than whites. And it really doesn't help the case of the cops when the sheer number of searches come up empty-handed. There's a lot of reason for blacks to feel like cops suspect them to be guilty of wrong-doing just because they're, well, black.

[Flagg]

That's not quite true for police as they have a duty to protect the people from demonstrated violent murderous assholes. Once (if) Brown demonstrated himself to be so depraved that he would violently assault an armed police officer, and we know now Wilson had received the report of the shop robbery that Brown matched to a T, he had every reason and duty to apprehend Brown even if he is running away because those types of people don't stop hurting others.

Does that mean stop by shooting him? No not in this case in my opinion, at least if he had kept running away, but there are plenty of circumstances where police are expected to shoot such as certain escaping prisoners for instance regardless whether they are armed or not.

According to SCOTUS police have NO duty to protect the public.

[Terralthra]

The numbers tell all the story you need to know. As 538 has reported, out of 163,000+ federal grand juries last year, exactly eleven declined to indict. The numbers at state levels didn't significantly differ. As NY Chief Judge Sol Wachtler said, "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." A ham sandwich, yes, but not a police officer who shot and killed a black man. He doesn't get an indictment. He gets half a million dollars.

[Grumman]

Or having a trial (even one that turns into a media circus) and being able to point to it and say "A dozen of his own peers concluded that Darren Wilson acted within reason by killing Michael Brown." If the case for Darren Wilson is that goddamn strong then why not go to trial and show it?

Because even right here in this thread you've got people saying they'd riot, but they can't be arsed listening to the evidence?

[Lost Soal]

The numbers tell all the story you need to know. As 538 has reported, out of 163,000+ federal grand juries last year, exactly eleven declined to indict. The numbers at state levels didn't significantly differ. As NY Chief Judge Sol Wachtler said, "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." A ham sandwich, yes, but not a police officer who shot and killed a black man. He doesn't get an indictment. He gets half a million dollars.

Grand Jury did the same for the guy killed in Wallmart even though the evidence showed he did nothing wrong and the police shot him within seconds of seeing him

[Napoleon the Clown]

Or having a trial (even one that turns into a media circus) and being able to point to it and say "A dozen of his own peers concluded that Darren Wilson acted within reason by killing Michael Brown." If the case for Darren Wilson is that goddamn strong then why not go to trial and show it?

Because even right here in this thread you've got people saying they'd riot, but they can't be arsed listening to the evidence?

Did you even fucking read what "they" said was cause to riot? Hint: It's the utter lack of a trial even having a chance at happening. There's not gonna be a trial at all. People kind of get pissed when, by all appearances, justice isn't even getting paid lip service. Especially given the long and sordid history law enforcement has in this country.


If Darren Wilson had been anything other than a cop he'd have gone to court over this instead of being given total anonymity until he could cross state lines and hide from what he did. Justified shooting or not, it's really fucking suspicious when you flee from the state before anyone can even put you on trial. That he isn't going to be charged with anything, that he will never have to set foot in a court room, is why people are so pissed off. If a black guy had shot a white kid, even if the situation were identical except for one being a cop and the other not being a cop, then there'd be a fucking trial. There wouldn't be a month-long debate over whether or not this motherfucker should have to appear before 12 random citizens, a room full of on-lookers, some lawyers, and a judge. His ass would either been thrown in a jail cell until bail was posted or he'd be told in no uncertain terms that if he leaves the state before the trial is completed he's going to spend time behind bars.

But this is a case where a cop is walking away consequence-free. He didn't even have to appear in court to plead a case of any sort. Meanwhile, black kids are being charged with crimes for which there is absolutely no evidence. Tell me how the black community is wrong to be pissed off?

[Flagg]

And Obama in his biggest Uncle Tom message to date is that "we have to accept the decision". No, we don't. But funny how all the dumbass hick open carry shitheads never seemed to get any lead thrown their way but some unarmed nigger looks at OFFICER DARREN WILSON the wrong way and OFFICER DARREN WILSON started a stupid confrontation because how DARE that fucking street thug lesser be so UPPITY as to do anything real or imagined that impugned OFFICER DARREN WILSONS sense of power? White and in the toy section of Target with an AR-15 slung on your shoulder to troll people, well that's just dandy but black and pick up an open box air rifle to see if it was something they want to purchase and it is kill on site.

Fuck the police.

[Enigma]

What is involved in a Grand Jury? Who makes the decision to indict or not? I'm not familiar with Grand Juries.

[Patroklos]

According to SCOTUS police have NO duty to protect the public.

More accurately the have digression on HOW and WHEN they decide to do so. There is no requirement for them to single handedly take down a drug den Rambo style even if it is their job and duty to enforce drug laws generally.

And Obama in his biggest Uncle Tom message to date is that "we have to accept the decision". No, we don't. But funny how all the dumbass hick open carry shitheads never seemed to get any lead thrown their way but some unarmed nigger looks at OFFICER DARREN WILSON the wrong way and OFFICER DARREN WILSON started a stupid confrontation because how DARE that fucking street thug lesser be so UPPITY as to do anything real or imagined that impugned OFFICER DARREN WILSONS sense of power? White and in the toy section of Target with an AR-15 slung on your shoulder to troll people, well that's just dandy but black and pick up an open box air rifle to see if it was something they want to purchase and it is kill on site.

Fuck the police.

And I see you have abandoned all pretense of matching your rhetoric to reality. News flash, Wilson did receive the strong arm robbery report and the description was so specific it would have been wrong to not stop Brown. You are a shining example of everything that is wrong with this situation.

[Borgholio]

What is involved in a Grand Jury? Who makes the decision to indict or not? I'm not familiar with Grand Juries.

It's the Jury's decision. In a typical Grand Jury, you have 12 people who are given a rundown of the evidence and they get to decide if there's probable cause that a crime was committed. If there was any possibility that a crime was actually committed, then the Grand Jury can vote to indict. When that happens, the case goes to a full trial where ALL the evidence is presented in a very meticulous fashion, lawyers argue, etc...

[FaxModem1]

New York City bridges shut down in protest:

Business Insider

Protesters Shut Down New York Bridges Over Ferguson Decision

Julie Zeveloff

Nov. 25, 2014, 1:15 AM
16,806
15

facebook
linkedin
twitter
google+
print
email

Thousands of protesters gathered in New York's Union Square and marched through the city following the decision by a grand jury to not indict police officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August.

Following the grand jury's decision, crowds marched north from Union Square toward Times Square and south through Washington Square Park before heading east, toward Brooklyn. They reportedly caused shutdowns on three city bridges: the Manhattan, the Tri-Boro, and the Brooklyn Bridge:

The crowd had gathered in Union Square ahead of the grand jury's decision to hear the outcome and to protest police brutality, and gatherers observed a moment of silence after the panel said it would not indict Wilson, according to DNAinfo.

Here's what the city's traffic situation looked like late Monday night:Screen Shot 2014 11 25 at 1.35.40 AMwnyc.org

Protesters also took to the streets in Harlem.

Hundreds of protesters who marched south down Thompson Street chanted "This is what democracy looks like" and held signs that said "Black lives matter."

ferguson protest new yorkJulie Zeveloff/Business Insider

ferguson protest new yorkJulie Zeveloff/Business Insider

ferguson protest new yorkJulie Zeveloff/Business Insider

As they marched south, the crowd chanted "No justice, no peace, no racist police."

And "Don't shoot, hands up."

IMG_5502.JPGJulie Zeveloff/Business Insider

According to NBC New York, the crowd in Union Square was estimated to be about 1,600 in size.

Massive protests also erupted Monday evening in Ferguson and in cities around the US. In Ferguson, police used tear gas on the crowds, and there were reports of gunshots and protesters smashing police cars.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/proteste ... z3K5Qtz7Eg

So, this is at least beyond Ferguson, now.

[Enigma]

So why are we dumping on the judicial system and the police over the decision of twelve (I'm assuming the jury was split race wise, half white, half black?) citizens? Basically, the rioters have their fellow neighbors (so to speak) to blame for not choosing to indict the police officer.

[Broomstick]

A trial is far preferable because then you get to see all the evidence in public.

The problem here is that the mob did not want a trial, they wanted a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence. If there had been a trial and the officer had been acquitted you would have had the same (or worse) rioting.

Here, it is essentially the mercy of the DA who can weaken or strengthen the case at will. I have no faith in the public authorities of that district given how they handled stuff in the past.

The grand jury is comprised of residents of St. Louis County, it's not a bunch of government officials from Ferguson.

If it makes you happy, the Feds are investigating independently for possible violations that would allow a trial in Federal court, but just because people want there to be evidence of a crime doesn't mean there is any, or that any crime was committed.

If they'd decided to indict, that wouldn't have been a guilty verdict. That would be a "You're having your day in court."

And what then? We should convict him to keep the peace, sacrifice a man as revenge for centuries of wrong-doing by other people?

From even a PR perspective, what would be better? Refusing to even have a trial? Or having a trial (even one that turns into a media circus) and being able to point to it and say "A dozen of his own peers concluded that Darren Wilson acted within reason by killing Michael Brown."

A dozen of his peers on the grand jury just did that. Where do you think grand jurors come from? They're selected from the same pool as regular juries.

If the case for Darren Wilson is that goddamn strong then why not go to trial and show it?

While I understand the thrust of your argument, an acquittal at trial would have had the same result on the street. It's quite obvious that there is a segment of people with no intrest in justice, what they want is revenge or an excuse to riot. It's unfortunate because I believe the vast majority of people in Ferguson, or anywhere else, don't want that and certainly don't want the violence and the burning of neighborhoods.

By refusing to even have a day in court it makes it look like they're hiding something.

Then why immediately unseal the records? Which they did, last night.

I haven't had an opportunity to look them over myself but the information is out there, why don't you take a look?

Maybe Mike Brown was charging Darren Wilson after having fled because trying to steal Wilson's gun turned out to be a mighty fine way to get shot, and then he decided "Fuck this pig, I'll show him!" I don't know, and I don't have any sources of information I trust to be sufficiently reliable to credit them for anything. Nonetheless, when they respond the way they have it gives the exact wrong impression to everyone.

I don't get where you're going with that. Yes, stealing a cop's gun IS a mighty fine way to get shot. What do you mean by “fuck this pig, I'll show him!” - that it was somehow OK to assault a police officer? Are you saying an officer shooting someone trying to beat him up and take is gun isn't legitimate self-defense?

Whether or not you believe Mike Brown "deserved" to get shot, keep in mind the history between blacks and law enforcement in the US. There is a very, very strong perception that cops are the enemy because, well, just look at the statistics. Blacks are targeted for traffic stops, searches, and pretty much everything else at a far greater rate than whites. And it really doesn't help the case of the cops when the sheer number of searches come up empty-handed. There's a lot of reason for blacks to feel like cops suspect them to be guilty of wrong-doing just because they're, well, black.

Are you saying that justifies insisting on a guilty verdict even before a trial? Are you saying that justifies a riot?

Yes, I'm entirely aware of the history between cops and blacks in this country. It is not, however, as bad as it used to be (I remember a time when black cops, or any cop being anything other than a white male, was virtually unknown). We still have a long way to go to perfection, but using the crimes of a generation or two ago to justify throwing someone to the wolves is just as wrong as letting the guilty go without penalty.

Did you even fucking read what "they" said was cause to riot? Hint: It's the utter lack of a trial even having a chance at happening. There's not gonna be a trial at all. People kind of get pissed when, by all appearances, justice isn't even getting paid lip service.

First of all – a grand jury IS part of the process.
Second – there is no bar to a civil trial. Just as in the OJ Simpson case where many perceived the verdict to be a miscarriage of justice and the families of the victims brought a civil case against him, the Brown still have the option to sue Wilson in civil court.
Third – the Feds aren't done with their investigation. If the Feds find prosecutable wrong-doing there will be a Federal trial.

This affair is not done yet.

If Darren Wilson had been anything other than a cop he'd have gone to court over this instead of being given total anonymity until he could cross state lines and hide from what he did. Justified shooting or not, it's really fucking suspicious when you flee from the state before anyone can even put you on trial.

It's not so surprising when you are getting death threats, though – or should he have stayed put and become a target for vigilantes?

On top of that, I have personal knowledge of people who have killed other people without winding up in court, said people were not cops, and not all of them were white.

And, not related to this case, but those of us who live next to a “state line” often enough cross them by accident, or may need to do so for employment. Crossing a state line isn't always a suspicious act.

That he isn't going to be charged with anything, that he will never have to set foot in a court room, is why people are so pissed off.

See above about Federal investigation and possible civil proceedings.

If a black guy had shot a white kid, even if the situation were identical except for one being a cop and the other not being a cop, then there'd be a fucking trial.

I know a couple of local instances where a black person shot a white person and never spent a night in jail or went to trial – then again, when said white person is someone who literally kicked in a front door and attempted to assault/rob the people inside and found to his sorrow the little teeny black woman owned a shotgun there's not a lot of room for interpretation, is there? Of course, you don't hear about those stories in the news, at most they're on the police blotter on page 3 of the local paper.

And there are plenty of instances of white people shooting black people and going to trial but, again, it usually doesn't get the air play of this case.

And Obama in his biggest Uncle Tom message to date is that "we have to accept the decision".

The President of the United States has something of a duty to uphold law and order, don't you think? It's the job of government officials to call for calm in these situations regardless of their color. What do you think would have happened if the PotUS said “this decision sucks, get angry”?

But funny how all the dumbass hick open carry shitheads never seemed to get any lead thrown their way but some unarmed nigger looks at OFFICER DARREN WILSON the wrong way and OFFICER DARREN WILSON started a stupid confrontation because how DARE that fucking street thug lesser be so UPPITY as to do anything real or imagined that impugned OFFICER DARREN WILSONS sense of power?

Punching Officer Darren Wilson multiple times in the head probably had something to do with Officer Darren Wilson opening fire – or are you ignoring the medical evidence that Wilson was punched multiple times?

What is involved in a Grand Jury? Who makes the decision to indict or not? I'm not familiar with Grand Juries.

It varies a bit from state to state, this being the US and all, but in Missouri grand jurors are selected from the same pool of people as regular or “petite juries” and serve a term of four months, typically meeting on a regular basis to review cases. The term can be extended in some circumstances and in this case it was. It's a fairly common way of doing things in the US.

Coincidentally, I recently received a notice from my county that I'm in the jury pool and qualified to serve – I could wind up on a petite jury, a grand jury, or never be called at all. I have served on a state-level jury. I was called multiple times about 10 years ago for Federal jury duty but never selected. I have known someone who served as a grand juror in the Washington, DC area.

Bottom line – the grand jurors are pretty much the same people as regular jurors, which are basically regular citizens “drafted” for jury duty.

Some states have grand juries seating as many as 23 people, but the process of selection is the same. Being a lawyer, police officer, or public official will get you excluded from being chosen. Some require only a bare majority to bring an indictment, some requiring a 2/3 vote.

[Broomstick]

New York City bridges shut down in protest:

....[snip]....

So, this is at least beyond Ferguson, now.

Last night they shut down traffic on Lake Shore Drive, Wacker Drive, and a few other major streets in Chicago, too.

The difference is that it wasn't a riot – Chicago protesters were shouting and cursing, they weren't shooting and setting things on fire. I absolutely support the right of people to march in the streets, but what happened in Ferguson was over the line.

So why are we dumping on the judicial system and the police over the decision of twelve (I'm assuming the jury was split race wise, half white, half black?) citizens? Basically, the rioters have their fellow neighbors (so to speak) to blame for not choosing to indict the police officer.

The grand jury had 9 white people and 3 black, which reflects the racial makeup of St. Louis County, which is where Ferguson is located. Ferguson is about 2/3 black.

[Enigma]

New York City bridges shut down in protest:

....[snip]....

So, this is at least beyond Ferguson, now.

Last night they shut down traffic on Lake Shore Drive, Wacker Drive, and a few other major streets in Chicago, too.

The difference is that it wasn't a riot – Chicago protesters were shouting and cursing, they weren't shooting and setting things on fire. I absolutely support the right of people to march in the streets, but what happened in Ferguson was over the line.

So why are we dumping on the judicial system and the police over the decision of twelve (I'm assuming the jury was split race wise, half white, half black?) citizens? Basically, the rioters have their fellow neighbors (so to speak) to blame for not choosing to indict the police officer.

The grand jury had 9 white people and 3 black, which reflects the racial makeup of St. Louis County, which is where Ferguson is located. Ferguson is about 2/3 black.

Oh ok. They should have at least split the jury into 6 black (three men and three women) jurors and 6 white (again half men and the other women) jurors.

[Borgholio]

Oh ok. They should have at least split the jury into 6 black (three men and three women) jurors and 6 white (again half men and the other women) jurors.

I'm not sure, but I think the process is mostly automated. I don't think they can stack a Grand Jury like they can in a normal trial where the lawyers can excuse jurors. But I may be wrong.

[Broomstick]

Yes, I don't think the jury selection process allows selecting the grand jury for a particular case. You can do that with a petite jury, not a grand.

Since the Civil Rights Era of the 1960's jurisdictions have made an effort to made the composition of juries (among other things) reflect that actual racial and other characteristic make-up of the area it covers, but "the area" exists at different geographic sizes. The St. Louis County grand jury having a membership reflecting St. Louis County is pretty typical these days, but the county isn't homogeneous.

As a comparison, in my area something official focused on the City of Gary will typically be 80-90% black, which reflects the 85% African-American composition of the city itself. Official bodies representing Lake County, however, are typically more around 1/4 black, because that's the demographics of the entire county. There are towns in the county that are nearly 100% white (still), and a few places where you hear Spanish more than English.

[Beowulf]

So why are we dumping on the judicial system and the police over the decision of twelve (I'm assuming the jury was split race wise, half white, half black?) citizens? Basically, the rioters have their fellow neighbors (so to speak) to blame for not choosing to indict the police officer.

The grand jury had 9 white people and 3 black, which reflects the racial makeup of St. Louis County, which is where Ferguson is located. Ferguson is about 2/3 black.

Oh ok. They should have at least split the jury into 6 black (three men and three women) jurors and 6 white (again half men and the other women) jurors.

What about the Asian and Latino members of the jury pool? Which seat are they going to take? It's a county grand jury, so it pulls from the entire county. Thus, you'd expect that the jury would reflect the makeup of the county.

[Broomstick]

St. Louis County (based on 2010 Census) is 70% white and 23% black, which makes for 93% of the county population. If you're only selecting 12 people randomly from a representative pool odds are the jury will be composed of whites and blacks. Asians (of any sort) are 3.5% of the population, Hispanics/Latinos (of any and all sorts) are 2.5% of the population. Someone of that background probably does land on the grand jury from time to time, but based on demographics there's nothing sinister in there not being such a person on a particular jury.

As an additional note - St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis.* They are two separate entities so when looking up the demographics it's important to not confuse the two.



* The City of St. Louis is not, in fact, a part of any county. Along with Baltimore, Maryland, Carson City, Nevada, and 38 cities in Virginia, it is an "independent city". This has occasionally led to fun in my family, almost all of which were born in St. Louis, filling out government forms asking for one's county of birth or residence. The fact there exists a St. Louis County only adds to the confusion.

[Lagmonster]

I really wish that the angrier of the protesters hadn't flipped out last night. I find it really damn hard to point to a violent thieving arsonist and say that I am an advocate for his complaint. Here we are, in the middle of a serious dialogue about the deep and dividing problems with police forces, and the people against the police are doing things that any sane person would call the police for. It's madness.

[Thanas]

The more info comes out about the DA the more sketchier this sounds. From a family of police officers, wanted to become a police officer before losing a leg, his father (while being a cop) was attacked and killed by a black man...yeah.

Oh and I am not that convinced by his sincerity either.

[Simon_Jester]

What narrative do you think fits the publicly available evidence?

[Thanas]

Thing is, you can't even trust the evidence that was presented due to the massive bias here. This should have been handled by an independent prosecutor.