Ferguson Live Feed

[Axulus]

The Quincy Story

Themes

Based on an unconfirmed report by the media, the victim was at one point a victimizer; armed robber. If this is true, the fact that he was a white male, within his 30s, and with a prior criminal record validates the reference Karmen (2007) makes in the course text: “most perpetrators and many of their victims had been in trouble with the law before their final showdown” and that “about 45 percent of the deceased turned out to have criminal records (arrests or convictions for misdemeanors or felonies)” (p. 89).

Victim Portrayal

The victim was vilified by the media from the beginning of the report.

Media Reinforcement of Portrayal

The omnipresent vilification within this news piece was quite heavily supported by the biased comments of the outspoken reporter, who repeatedly mentioned the victim’s prior involvement, or insinuations of prior involvement, in the world of crime. Not only was the victim vilified, but he was also undignified, as according to the reporter the victim’s body laid next to a car: “only 30 feet behind me” – as the newscaster so prominently said.

Patterns

Official crime statistics and the Quincy murder victim are tied in closely. The victim is: male, in his 30’s, most likely single, living in lower to middle class environment and with a prior criminal record. Moreover, the news report further adds strength to this assertion by having viewers assume that there were two white males involved in the killing of the Caucasian victim. This supports the intraracial assertion by Karmen (2007).

http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/11/victimology-themes-patterns-victim-portrayal-and-the-media/

So race is the only factor in how the media portrays certain victims, or just one of many factors?

You still don't get it. No one has said anything is always the one thing. If that has been said, show where. If not, this proves nothing. And it certainly does not disprove centuries of documented history of race and racism, or the current lived experience of minorities in the US.

So what exactly is your point? What great truth propels you?

My point is there are people who can not see or will not see me or people like me. And they call us dumb or liars when we speak what see have lived in truth. Even as we die from their blindness, it is we who are wrong and we who cause evil be speaking that evils name. We are not real. We are phantoms to be feared and exorcised or not believed in and ignored.

For some,  Ralph Ellison is still right.

My point is that the media, first and foremost, hammers on about victims alleged past criminal involvement regardless of race all the time, especially if the victim fits the media's profile for such, young, often single male from lower to middle class neighborhoods.

Yes, race is a factor, but does not appear to be the biggest factor in many situations. You keep emphasizing race, race, and only race. That racism is so severe that it causes every sector of society to do outlandishly racist things, allowing the execution of blacks on a whim and then the media and legal system put on a show, blame the victim, and the racists in the system swoop in and let the offender off.

This has been the constant theme of your posts lately.

 

[ksen]

I love when things get whitesplained.

 

[Axulus]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

Ferguson Cop Darren Wilson Is Just the Latest to Go Unprosecuted for a Fatal Shooting

Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop

Bob McCulloch’s pathetic prosecution of Darren Wilson

There are a few possible explainations for this rare event.

1. The jury is heavily biased to find cops especiallu trustworthy.

2. The jury and the DA is racist and felt Brown had it coming to him because he was a black thug

3. The evidence in the case was was especially weak.

4. Some combination of the above.

My question to you: why do you _completely_ dismiss the possibility of any involvement of #3?

 

[maxparrish]

That may or may not be true - I understand that Wilson's DNA was found on the bracelet worn by Johnson.

Source please.

The reason I said it "may or may not be true" is because while it has been reported that Wilsons DNA was found on the bracelet by Johnson, my understanding is based on secondary sources that I have not vetted. I finally located the DNA report - I do not believe it is true. However, this link does present some interesting evidence that Johnson somehow lost his "bracelet(s)" through some kind of action.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...ious-co-hort-contradictions-and-his-bracelet/

 

[ksen]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

Ferguson Cop Darren Wilson Is Just the Latest to Go Unprosecuted for a Fatal Shooting

Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop

Bob McCulloch’s pathetic prosecution of Darren Wilson

There are a few possible explainations for this rare event.

1. The jury is heavily biased to find cops especiallu trustworthy.

2. The jury and the DA is racist and felt Brown had it coming to him because he was a black thug

3. The evidence in the case was was especially weak.

4. Some combination of the above.

My question to you: why do you _completely_ dismiss the possibility of any involvement of #3?

There's also a #5: The DA considers himself on the same team as the police officers and that may cause him to not go as hard after a fellow Law and Order worker.

 

[maxparrish]

I didn't say she was incorrect, did I? I said the statistics are meaningless. She might as well as quoted the statistics on hemlines and sunspots, if accurate but irrelevant numbers are part of someones "point".

So statistics showing that grad juries always find probably cause except in cases of law enforcement shootings where they rarely do is a meaningless statistic. Nice.

Yes, they are meaningless because, by themselves, they say nothing. The frequency of an event, be it common or rare, says nothing about the meaning within a specific event. I provided several counter-examples, so I should not need to provide more.

Which sentence or example are you unable to grasp?

 

[Axulus]

St. Louis cops demand that Rams players be punished for “Hands up, don’t shoot” entrance



sounds like a threat to me

He doesn't appear to understand the first amendment rights of those players. or the message.
He is saying much more about himself than about the players. Bullhorn announcement - "I think the ones seeking justice and the ones burning buildings are all the same thuggish people. I cannot discern. There was nothing wrong that happened here!"

I don't think they are advocating the government sanction these players, which is what the first amendment deals with. Employers are allowed to employ penalties on employees for unwanted speech that the government may not do. However, I don't really care about what the Rams players did on the field.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

Ferguson Cop Darren Wilson Is Just the Latest to Go Unprosecuted for a Fatal Shooting

Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop

Bob McCulloch’s pathetic prosecution of Darren Wilson

There are a few possible explainations for this rare event.

1. The jury is heavily biased to find cops especiallu trustworthy.

2. The jury and the DA is racist and felt Brown had it coming to him because he was a black thug

3. The evidence in the case was was especially weak.

4. Some combination of the above.

My question to you: why do you _completely_ dismiss the possibility of any involvement of #3?

Because I don't think the evidence was weak, but contradictory. There is a difference.

 

[maxparrish]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

Ferguson Cop Darren Wilson Is Just the Latest to Go Unprosecuted for a Fatal Shooting

Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop

Bob McCulloch’s pathetic prosecution of Darren Wilson

There are a few possible explainations for this rare event.

1. The jury is heavily biased to find cops especiallu trustworthy.

2. The jury and the DA is racist and felt Brown had it coming to him because he was a black thug

3. The evidence in the case was was especially weak.

4. Some combination of the above.

My question to you: why do you _completely_ dismiss the possibility of any involvement of #3?

You shouldn't miss the a pivotal contributing factor; such events are rare because prosecutors usually don't take cases that won't meet the probable cause criteria for indictment. On occasion, unethical prosecutors will do so (e.g. Ronnie Earle & Tom DeLay) but it is not the usual practice.

5. The case should have never been presented to the grand jury to begin with.

 

[Axulus]

There are a few possible explainations for this rare event.

1. The jury is heavily biased to find cops especiallu trustworthy.

2. The jury and the DA is racist and felt Brown had it coming to him because he was a black thug

3. The evidence in the case was was especially weak.

4. Some combination of the above.

My question to you: why do you _completely_ dismiss the possibility of any involvement of #3?

You shouldn't miss the a pivotal contributing factor; such events are rare because prosecutors usually don't take cases that won't meet the probable cause criteria for indictment. On occasion, unethical prosecutors will do so (e.g. Ronnie Earle & Tom DeLay) but it is not the usual practice.

5. The case should have never been presented to the grand jury to begin with.

That still falls into category #3. It just explains why it was brought to the grand jury in the first place.

 

[Axulus]

There are a few possible explainations for this rare event.

1. The jury is heavily biased to find cops especiallu trustworthy.

2. The jury and the DA is racist and felt Brown had it coming to him because he was a black thug

3. The evidence in the case was was especially weak.

4. Some combination of the above.

My question to you: why do you _completely_ dismiss the possibility of any involvement of #3?

Because I don't think the evidence was weak, but contradictory. There is a difference.

Ok, and what criteria can we utilize to determine the relative influence of factors #1, #2 and #3 in any given similar case? Do you agree that if the evidence in the case was especially weak, it provides a sufficient explanation for the DA's conduct and the grand jury deciding not to indict? How can the public determine, in a relatively unbiased manner, that it was _definitely NOT_ #3 as the primary contributing factor (as you seem to believe). That people often find the police trustworthy doesn't mean they _always_ do. That many people are racist and such racism heavily influences their judgment doesn't mean that it heavily influences _everyone's_ judgment.

Also, when evidence is contradictory instead of clear cut (leading to only one conclusion), this is exactly the type of case we don't want to waste resources on with a full blown trial, exactly the type of case a grand jury should weed out from those cases that are much stronger, no? Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is a very high standard of guilt in our society.

 

[ksen]

Also, when evidence is contradictory instead of clear cut (leading to only one conclusion), this is exactly the type of case we don't want to waste resources on with a full blown trial, exactly the type of case a grand jury should weed out from those cases that are much stronger, no?

I think those are exactly the cases that should go to trial.

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is a very high standard of guilt in our society.

This is true. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up in a conversation about a grand jury proceeding though since a grand jury is not there to decide guilt or innocence. They're just there to tell the prosecutor that he's got enough evidence to warrant a trial before a jury.

 

[Axulus]

I think those are exactly the cases that should go to trial.

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is a very high standard of guilt in our society.

This is true. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up in a conversation about a grand jury proceeding though since a grand jury is not there to decide guilt or innocence. They're just there to tell the prosecutor that he's got enough evidence to warrant a trial before a jury.

And contradictory evidence doesn't meet that standard. It has no chance to meet the "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard and thus no resources should be wasted on a trial. We want trials to be conducted based on merit, not show trials.

 

[ksen]

Again, why are you bringing up "beyond all reasonable doubt" in a grand jury discussion? That's not their job.

 

[Axulus]

Again, why are you bringing up "beyond all reasonable doubt" in a grand jury discussion? That's not their job.

I'm talking about the concept of a grand jury. Their core function in our society is to weed out cases that have no chance of guilt being demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt from those that do so that resources aren't wasted.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Again, why are you bringing up "beyond all reasonable doubt" in a grand jury discussion? That's not their job.

I'm talking about the concept of a grand jury. Their core function in our society is to weed out cases that have no chance of guilt being demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt from those that do so that resources aren't wasted.

Their charge is to find probable cause.

It is the actual trial that is to reach a conclusion of beyond reasonable doubt.

You may not understand this, but I assure you I do and so do the members of the judicial system.

 

[ksen]

Again, why are you bringing up "beyond all reasonable doubt" in a grand jury discussion? That's not their job.

I'm talking about the concept of a grand jury. Their core function in our society is to weed out cases that have no chance of guilt being demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt from those that do so that resources aren't wasted.

That's not their core function and has never been their core function. Their job is to tell the prosecutor if he's presented enough evidence to show a crime may or may not have been committed. That's it.

Their job is not to weigh the probability of whether or not the prosecutor can get a convicition and vote accordingly.

 

[Axulus]

I'm talking about the concept of a grand jury. Their core function in our society is to weed out cases that have no chance of guilt being demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt from those that do so that resources aren't wasted.

Their charge is to find probable cause.

It is the actual trial that is to reach a conclusion of beyond reasonable doubt.

You may not understand this, but I assure you I do and so do the members of the judicial system.

And why are they set up to reach a conclusion of probable cause? If it is not to weed out cases that have no chance of being able to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then why have them at all? Please enlighten all of us with your superior understanding.

I'm talking about their _purpose_, not the specifics on how they accomplish it.

 

[Axulus]

I'm talking about the concept of a grand jury. Their core function in our society is to weed out cases that have no chance of guilt being demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt from those that do so that resources aren't wasted.

That's not their core function and has never been their core function. Their job is to tell the prosecutor if he's presented enough evidence to show a crime may or may not have been committed. That's it.

Their job is not to weigh the probability of whether or not the prosecutor can get a convicition and vote accordingly.

Then why have them at all? If a prosecutor can't even determine whether a crime has likely been committed, then it doesn't sound like there is a chance in hell at a conviction in a trial.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That's not their core function and has never been their core function. Their job is to tell the prosecutor if he's presented enough evidence to show a crime may or may not have been committed. That's it.

Their job is not to weigh the probability of whether or not the prosecutor can get a convicition and vote accordingly.

Then why have them at all? If a prosecutor can't even determine whether a crime has likely been committed, then it doesn't sound like there is a chance in hell at a conviction in a trial.

It is about finding probable cause to proceed. The conclusion need not be a done deal in order to determine if there is reason to look further.