Ferguson Live Feed

[repoman]

so sick of all of these social justice faggot protestors who shut down Westlake Center in Downtown Seattle four hours early on black Friday evening. They have a secular religion.

These socialists are getting too emboldened and need to be pushed back against.

If there ever were a flawed "martyr" it sure is Michael Brown. If he did NOT rob a store and all of the other facts were shown to be the same and the grand jury didn't indict it would not be a story. This is the same media that covered that plane for over a month.

The cocksucker media picked up on this because it knew that many whites would think "fuck that guy, he was a bully robber" which would pit Fox News and CNN against each other. Making money off race baiting.

The actual incident I don't give a fuck about. I am more interested in the race narrative and how we are played like Pavlov's Dog.

The other thing of note is how the Grand Jury system is a joke. The Prosecutor was more of a defense attorney showing that some of the witnesses against the cop were inconsistent - when does that EVER happen in a Grand Jury not involving a police shooting?!?

 

[thebeave]

I agree about the racial aspect. The media keeps emphasizing, from Day 1, that it is a white cop shooting a black teenager. The race of the cop/victim is always mentioned, but I have yet to hear how its relevant to this case. The cop didn't racially profile Brown, call him racial slurs or, to my knowledge, have a history of racial bigotry. Yet the initial incident and protest is being framed as a racial case. I've even heard comparisons to Emmett Till and other obvious racist incidents. Its ridiculous, and only serves to further undermine tenuous relations between blacks and whites. Its getting to point where a white cop will never be able to question or arrest a black suspect without cries of racism from the peanut gallery.

As usual, the media ran with this story initially before having all the facts. In their early, simpleton, uninformed view, it was a case of bad white cop shooting the college bound, innocent "Gentle Giant" black guy who was minding his own business. I think had they known Michael Brown was high, did a strong arm robbery minutes before, had attacked the cop first, and had not been shot in the back with "hands up" as witnesses claimed, they would not have not made a huge deal of this particular incident. But, once you get the ball rolling, its hard to stop, and everyone starts engaging in "group think", and if you question the bad-white-cop-slaying-the-innocent-black-teen narrative, you're labelled racist, or presumed to be in denial.

No doubt there are cases of white cops abusing their power toward blacks. This was not the prototypical case to be held up as an example and create an international firestorm over it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The prosecutor's job is to go after an indictment. This prosecutor did not want to indict, and he got his wish.

 

[repoman]

In an ideal world his job should be to take an honest look at what he knows and cull all the unlikely and unreliable evidence and testimony from the Grand Jury presentation. Even evidence that could be used to indict a cop killer suspect, for example.

Only at a trial should he let the defense attorney have exculpatory evidence. All of it, and not in a document dump of lots of other irrelevent bullshit.

But if that evidence is massive their should not be an indictment in the first case.

But these prosecutors often seem to turn into amoral monsters.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I agree about the racial aspect. The media keeps emphasizing, from Day 1, that it is a white cop shooting a black teenager. The race of the cop/victim is always mentioned, but I have yet to hear how its relevant to this case. The cop didn't racially profile Brown, call him racial slurs or, to my knowledge, have a history of racial bigotry. Yet the initial incident and protest is being framed as a racial case.

Whether the case is technically racial in nature isn't the point. The point is the continuing racial disparity in the criminal justice system and that cases such as this are seen by casual onlookers as driving home that point.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I agree about the racial aspect. The media keeps emphasizing, from Day 1, that it is a white cop shooting a black teenager. The race of the cop/victim is always mentioned, but I have yet to hear how its relevant to this case. The cop didn't racially profile Brown, call him racial slurs or, to my knowledge, have a history of racial bigotry. Yet the initial incident and protest is being framed as a racial case. I've even heard comparisons to Emmett Till and other obvious racist incidents. Its ridiculous, and only serves to further undermine tenuous relations between blacks and whites. Its getting to point where a white cop will never be able to question or arrest a black suspect without cries of racism from the peanut gallery.

As usual, the media ran with this story initially before having all the facts. In their early, simpleton, uninformed view, it was a case of bad white cop shooting the college bound, innocent "Gentle Giant" black guy who was minding his own business. I think had they known Michael Brown was high, did a strong arm robbery minutes before, had attacked the cop first, and had not been shot in the back with "hands up" as witnesses claimed, they would not have not made a huge deal of this particular incident. But, once you get the ball rolling, its hard to stop, and everyone starts engaging in "group think", and if you question the bad-white-cop-slaying-the-innocent-black-teen narrative, you're labelled racist, or presumed to be in denial.

No doubt there are cases of white cops abusing their power toward blacks. This was not the prototypical case to be held up as an example and create an international firestorm over it.

you think the media had no reason to run with the racial angle?

 

[maxparrish]

The prosecutor's job is to go after an indictment. This prosecutor did not want to indict, and he got his wish.

No, although much abused by badge heavy and politically ambitious prosecutor's, as an officer of the court the prosecutor's job is to seek justice. Grand Juries can serve two different functions: first, as bodies of indictment for probable cause cases already screened by the prosecutor or second, as investigative bodies. Prosecutors who don't believe that a case reaches the level of probable cause does not, in general, bother to go to a grand jury.

Given the heavily politicized and racially charged nature of the case, the prosecutor chose to conduct an impartial fact-finding hearing, including the statements and testimony of sixty witnesses and calling Wilson himself to the stand. Had a white officer shot a white man, he wouldn't have bothered to use a grand jury on a case that did not merit even an arrest, let alone an indictment.

But then, there are those who demand proprietorial abuse on behalf of racial meme's. Race did play a role in calling for a grand jury, just not in the way you imagined.

 

[ksen]

The prosecutor's job is to go after an indictment. This prosecutor did not want to indict, and he got his wish.

No, although much abused by badge heavy and politically ambitious prosecutor's, as an officer of the court the prosecutor's job is to seek justice. Grand Juries can serve two different functions: first, as bodies of indictment for probable cause cases already screened by the prosecutor or second, as investigative bodies. Prosecutors who don't believe that a case reaches the level of probable cause does not, in general, bother to go to a grand jury.

Given the heavily politicized and racially charged nature of the case, the prosecutor chose to conduct an impartial fact-finding hearing, including the statements and testimony of sixty witnesses and calling Wilson himself to the stand. Had a white officer shot a white man, he wouldn't have bothered to use a grand jury on a case that did not merit even an arrest, let alone an indictment.

But then, there are those who demand proprietorial abuse on behalf of racial meme's. Race did play a role in calling for a grand jury, just not in the way you imagined.

It wasn't impartial.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The prosecutor's job is to go after an indictment. This prosecutor did not want to indict, and he got his wish.

No, although much abused by badge heavy and politically ambitious prosecutor's, as an officer of the court the prosecutor's job is to seek justice.

We have an adversarial process where each side vigorously seek victory WITHIN the rules. Out of this process should come truth and thus justice. The DA seeks an indictment. The process is set up to all but insure he will get one. When a DA doesn't get an indictment, it's a pretty sure bet it is because he doesn't want one.

He did not vigorously seek and he did not get the indictment.

That is a fact.

But not unusual in the cases involving law enforcement.

- - - Updated - - -

No, although much abused by badge heavy and politically ambitious prosecutor's, as an officer of the court the prosecutor's job is to seek justice. Grand Juries can serve two different functions: first, as bodies of indictment for probable cause cases already screened by the prosecutor or second, as investigative bodies. Prosecutors who don't believe that a case reaches the level of probable cause does not, in general, bother to go to a grand jury.

Given the heavily politicized and racially charged nature of the case, the prosecutor chose to conduct an impartial fact-finding hearing, including the statements and testimony of sixty witnesses and calling Wilson himself to the stand. Had a white officer shot a white man, he wouldn't have bothered to use a grand jury on a case that did not merit even an arrest, let alone an indictment.

But then, there are those who demand proprietorial abuse on behalf of racial meme's. Race did play a role in calling for a grand jury, just not in the way you imagined.

It wasn't impartial.

Not by a long shot.

Nor was he interest in finding facts. Giving Wilson the opportunity of a soliloquy is not fact finding.

 

[laughing dog]

Except that Brown did not still go after Wilson until Wilson went after Brown.

It's his job to go after criminals.

It is not Wilson's job to execute unarmed people.

 

[Axulus]

It's his job to go after criminals.

It is not Wilson's job to execute unarmed people.

Stay on topic! A key part of his job is to apprehend criminals, especially those who engage in violent assault, even if doing so puts his safety at some risk.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not Wilson's job to execute unarmed people.

Stay on topic! A key part of his job is to apprehend criminals, especially those who engage in violent assault, even if doing so puts his safety at some risk.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize executing a wounded suspected criminal is a key part of the job of a police officer. Or do you think that Wilson is really an double 00 with a license to kill?

 

[Axulus]

Stay on topic! A key part of his job is to apprehend criminals, especially those who engage in violent assault, even if doing so puts his safety at some risk.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize executing a wounded suspected criminal is a key part of the job of a police officer. Or do you think that Wilson is really an double 00 with a license to kill?

I'm sorry, I didn't know that attempting to apprehend a violent criminal is the same as executing them. In your mind, Brown went after Wilson after Wilson attempted to execute him? Explains a lot of your responses.

 

[Axulus]

The prosecutor's job is to go after an indictment. This prosecutor did not want to indict, and he got his wish.

What purpose would a circus trial have served other than to waste millions of taxpayer dollars and court resources? Because the mob demanded it? Do you think any key evidence was withheld from the grand jury? If so, which evidence? If not, then the available evidence wasn't even enough for probable cause of a majority of the jury, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt in a unanimous decision a formal trial would've required.

 

[Axulus]

I've even heard comparisons to Emmett Till and other obvious racist incidents. Its ridiculous, and only serves to further undermine tenuous relations between blacks and whites. Its getting to point where a white cop will never be able to question or arrest a black suspect without cries of racism from the peanut gallery.

Agreed. The defense's primary strategy in the Emmett Till case was arguing that the body pulled from the river could not be positively identified, and they questioned whether Till was dead at all. What a complete joke to make a comparison to a nuanced and questionable self defense claim in a situation that involved violently attacking a cop (and causing his gun to misfire twice in his vehicle) after having just completed a strong arm robbery of a store, and failing to surrender to arrest ("get on the ground" he certainly didn't do).

"Racism is alive and well - white 300 lb guys that violently attack cops are never shot!"

 

[laughing dog]

The prosecutor's job is to go after an indictment. This prosecutor did not want to indict, and he got his wish.

What purpose would a circus trial have served other than to waste millions of taxpayer dollars and court resources? Because the mob demanded it? Do you think any key evidence was withheld from the grand jury? If so, which evidence? If not, then the available evidence wasn't even enough for probable cause of a majority of the jury, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt in a unanimous decision a formal trial would've required.

What is important in a racially charged situation like this is the appearance of impartial justice. This DA has a history of "leniency" in police shootings. Even before the grand jury was convened, there was a concern that this DA would not impartially do his job. Given that this DA did not make a recommendation as to charges (a rather infrequent occurrence), the appearance of impartial justice has not been met in the eyes of many people. That will not help matters at all. If this DA had gotten an indictment, a trial would have made everything public and gone a long way to easing racial tensions.

For some obscure reason, many white people just do not get that there is still a strong residual of racial tension when it comes to these matters. It doesn't matter whether anyone thinks these tensions or views are merited - they exist. Which means that as an alleged civil society, we need to acknowledge and deal with them. The way this matter was handled is a textbook case of how to make it worse.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I've even heard comparisons to Emmett Till and other obvious racist incidents. Its ridiculous, and only serves to further undermine tenuous relations between blacks and whites. Its getting to point where a white cop will never be able to question or arrest a black suspect without cries of racism from the peanut gallery.

Agreed. The defense's primary strategy in the Emmett Till case was arguing that the body pulled from the river could not be positively identified, and they questioned whether Till was dead at all. What a complete joke to make a comparison to a nuanced and questionable self defense claim in a situation that involved violently attacking a cop (and causing his gun to misfire twice in his vehicle) after having just completed a strong arm robbery of a store, and failing to surrender to arrest ("get on the ground" he certainly didn't do).

"Racism is alive and well - white 300 lb guys that violently attack cops are never shot!"

At the time of the Emmett Till murder, A great many white folk thought that defense was valid. And they could not believe that charges were actually brought based on such flimsy evidence. What a waste of money. Just to keep the blacks from getting upset and rioting. Waste of time and resources better spent on other things.

Gosh, that does sound familiar.

 

[Axulus]

What purpose would a circus trial have served other than to waste millions of taxpayer dollars and court resources? Because the mob demanded it? Do you think any key evidence was withheld from the grand jury? If so, which evidence? If not, then the available evidence wasn't even enough for probable cause of a majority of the jury, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt in a unanimous decision a formal trial would've required.

What is important in a racially charged situation like this is the appearance of impartial justice. This DA has a history of "leniency" in police shootings. Even before the grand jury was convened, there was a concern that this DA would not impartially do his job. Given that this DA did not make a recommendation as to charges (a rather infrequent occurrence), the appearance of impartial justice has not been met in the eyes of many people. That will not help matters at all. If this DA had gotten an indictment, a trial would have made everything public and gone a long way to easing racial tensions.

For some obscure reason, many white people just do not get that there is still a strong residual of racial tension when it comes to these matters. It doesn't matter whether anyone thinks these tensions or views are merited - they exist. Which means that as an alleged civil society, we need to acknowledge and deal with them. The way this matter was handled is a textbook case of how to make it worse.

I agree that this DA was a bad choice. I don't agree that a different DA would have guaranteed an indictment. I don't think an indictment is the right thing here. The evidence in this case (what I am aware of) is not strong enough to warrant a trial. I'm not saying there is some questionable judgment here in the shooting and some ambiguous witness testimony, but questionable judgment does not come anywhere near close to having anything like a reasonable shot at a conviction.

The evidence in the Zimmerman case, for example, was far stronger and even then I agree still wasn't strong enough for "beyond all reasonable doubt" for a conviction.

 

[Axulus]

Agreed. The defense's primary strategy in the Emmett Till case was arguing that the body pulled from the river could not be positively identified, and they questioned whether Till was dead at all. What a complete joke to make a comparison to a nuanced and questionable self defense claim in a situation that involved violently attacking a cop (and causing his gun to misfire twice in his vehicle) after having just completed a strong arm robbery of a store, and failing to surrender to arrest ("get on the ground" he certainly didn't do).

"Racism is alive and well - white 300 lb guys that violently attack cops are never shot!"

At the time of the Emmett Till murder, A great many white folk thought that defense was valid. And they could not believe that charges were actually brought based on such flimsy evidence. What a waste of money. Just to keep the blacks from getting upset and rioting. Waste of time and resources better spent on other things.

Gosh, that does sound familiar.

Once again, what a joke to compare the objective quality of the evidence in the two cases.

"In later interviews, the jurors acknowledged that they knew Bryant and Milam were guilty, but simply did not believe life imprisonment or the death penalty fit punishment for whites who had killed a black man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till#Trial

 

[laughing dog]

I agree that this DA was a bad choice. I don't agree that a different DA would have guaranteed an indictment.

I read somewhere that DA's get indictments over 95% of the time, so the chances were certainly greater. And the appearance of impartiality would have bolstered (depending on who the other DA was).

I don't think an indictment is the right thing here. The evidence in this case (what I am aware of) is not strong enough to warrant a trial. I'm not saying there is some questionable judgment here in the shooting and some ambiguous witness testimony, but questionable judgment does not come anywhere near close to having anything like a reasonable shot at a conviction.

The fact that a number of people disagree is sufficient to warrant a trial IMO.

The evidence in the Zimmerman case, for example, was far stronger and even then I agree still wasn't strong enough for "beyond all reasonable doubt" for a conviction.

So?

I grew up in the St.Louis metro area. I have family who still lives there. They thought Wilson would never be indicted before the grand jury was convened and before the facts come out. Between the screwed up response by the Ferguson police and the failure to get an indictment racial tensions are going to get worse before they have a chance to get better.