The point is that you just don't hate brown people enough. You can see what terrible human beings they are. They're violent and stuff, and white people aren't, or they're not as violent, or something that makes white people and cops the good guys and brown people the bad guys. You need to amp up the bigotry so you can see this more clearly.Suspects are in custody. And, of course, the suspects are not police officers. So the point of this is.....?32 year old Bosnian (who are white) was brutally murdered by a hispanic and a black teenager in St. Louis.
Man dies after being struck by hammers
Is Irrev. Al Sharpton going to comment on this? How about Obama? Or even the St. Louis Rams?
Now what if a black cop killed an unarmed white teenager under very questionable circumstances, and was never investigated. What would supporters of various police shootings say? Would racism or authoritarianism prove to be the stronger basis for which way they would swing?
The statement reads:
The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. [SLPOA Business Manager Jeff] Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization’s displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, “I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I’ve got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I’d remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser’s products. It’s cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it’s not the NFL and the Rams, then it’ll be cops and their supporters.
Now what if a black cop killed an unarmed white teenager under very questionable circumstances, and was never investigated. What would supporters of various police shootings say? Would racism or authoritarianism prove to be the stronger basis for which way they would swing?
It did happen, in a way. But because the cop was black and the victim white, the social justice warriors apparently didn't care much about it. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/washington_times_contrasts_med.html
It could also be just plain old stupidity, but we'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he has a political agenda. Which he states he does have. The site is run by a securities lawyer who wants to be a big shot in Republican politics. You'll notice how we pointed out the errors and fabrications throughout this thread. Including the outright misquoting in the press of the Medical Examiner who had to go public and correct the record. You site that brings this up but fails to correct the erroneous information. That's either due to his political agenda or stupidity.This result has not been unexpected, as the overwhelming weight of both the eye witness and forensic evidence has been entirely consistent with Officer Wilson’s narrative of self-defense, including:
- Wilson being attacked by Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson in his patrol vehicle
- a struggle over Wilson’s service pistol
- shots fired inside the vehicle (which forensic examination confirmed caused a contact gun shot wound to Brown’s right hand)
- the temporary flight of Brown upon those initial gunshots
- the return of the 292 pound Brown re-engage the much smaller officer
- the firing of additional defensive rounds as necessary to halt Brown’s violence
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...o-indictment-in-michael-brown-shooting//#more
There are certainly easier ways to randomly execute unarmed "gentle giants".
You do know that the contact wound was misreported and that Dorian Johnson's testimony states that no attack occurred.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...uson-documents-what-michael-browns-friend-saw
Oh and your legal link has an admitted conservative agenda. Not just bias, agenda:
Legal Insurrection now is one of the most widely cited and influential conservative websites, with hundreds of thousands of visitors per month. Our work has been highlighted by top conservative radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and Professor Jacobson regularly appears as a guest on radio shows across the nation.
And therefore it they point out that the sun rises in the east, we should scream bias?
Perhaps you missed Nate Silver's data?The DA seeks an indictment when he has probable cause and believes a person to be guilty. For someone who claims to support civil rights, I can't think of a more illiberal and reactionary view than the ones you just expressed. I was unable to find (or fathom) where on earth you got the benighted and legally primitive view that the fundamental goal of State prosecutors is "vigorously seeking victory" regardless of merit or justice. Just so you know, American law's ethical requirements for prosecutors is a tad more than that of the Church's Grand Inquisitor Torquemada or the Stalin's Vyshinsky:...
LOL...in case you were not aware, he is a witness as well. And yep, under the law if the Grand Jury wants to hear his side of the story they can request it. He could, like many, have refused it but he appeared without a lawyer and answered their questions.Nor was he interest in finding facts. Giving Wilson the opportunity of a soliloquy is not fact finding.
You finished Max?
There is only one ringmaster in the circus known as the grand jury. That is the prosecutor. And unless he wants something to happen, it does not happen unless he is the most incompetent boob in history.
You wiil not disprove that because you can't.
NEXT
You mean unless the prosecutor wants to indict a ham sandwich, it does not happen? Well yes Athena, that was the point. Rather than charge someone who did not meet the standard of probable cause, he let a grand jury decide. Perhaps you have a serious point beyond your expectation that anytime a white cop shoots and kills a black man the white cop must also be charged and convicted of murder, regardless of the evidence?
If not, then all you are doing is promoting a black racialist meme. Discussions based on principled stands of law, justice, or rights are pointless. "Me hate white cops" or "me hate Negros" is not really amenable to reason - it is little more than knuckle dragging tribalism.
I think the claim is that his presence in the department brings undue attention and criticism to the department and the work it is trying to do. Even if he did no wrong, the perception that he did can bring negative consequences should his presence continue in his current position. I'm not saying that I believe he did no wrong, but there is merit in the argument.
- As it is very rare for shootings by cops to go to grand juries, it means the prosecutor must have been motivated by bias against the cop and should never have gone to the grand jury to begin with.
Why? Why can't it be because the only attorney present didn't choose to provide damning information?- As grand juries rarely refuse to indict, when they do refuse, the object of investigation must have been unquestionably not guilty.
Oh. That's what happens instead.- As it is rare that cops even go to trial for shootings, the fact that this this one did not go to trial only confirms that it was a fair process.
If the commonality or the rarity of an event is supposed to determine the "truth" of a specific event, then you can invent and spin "truth" in many ways, no?
However, the most serious "incredible stupidity" was the author's failure to measure the number of cases where an individual (or police) shooting does not even go to a grand jury because the prosecutor believes the evidence for a crime is weak, contradictory, or non-existent - so weak that the prosecutor does not even have probable cause for an arrest.
And to himself, yes, you nailed it. He knew there was public outrage and demand for justice and he could do an end-run around it by sandbagging the evidence and making the grand jury take the blame.So why did the prosecutor take a case to the Grand Jury that he did not believe to meet the benchmark of probable cause? Because of the race inflammed controversy - he did so not as an advocate for the indictment demanding lynch mob, but to give prosecutorial discretion to the grand jurors.
So in his attempt to 'be fair' and to not kill the case outright,
wrong, the people are claiming that he should have done a decent job presenting to the grand jury, and that it shouldn't have been a grand jury in the first place, but a trial where people could be sure the decent job was being done instead of just getting a transcript after the fact that was obviously full of dump-truck sized holes.the nutroots are yelling that he should not gone to a grand jury UNLESS he was convinced their was probable cause and he was willing aggressively pursue an indictment.
Perhaps not - he was damned anyway.
St. Louis cops demand that Rams players be punished for “Hands up, don’t shoot” entrance
The statement reads:
The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. [SLPOA Business Manager Jeff] Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization’s displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, “I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I’ve got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I’d remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser’s products. It’s cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it’s not the NFL and the Rams, then it’ll be cops and their supporters.
sounds like a threat to me
St. Louis cops demand that Rams players be punished for “Hands up, don’t shoot” entrance
The statement reads:
The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. [SLPOA Business Manager Jeff] Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization’s displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, “I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I’ve got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I’d remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser’s products. It’s cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it’s not the NFL and the Rams, then it’ll be cops and their supporters.
sounds like a threat to me
Darren Wilson resigns
"Whether officially his license is removed or unofficially, I think it would be very unlikely that he'll ever seek law enforcement again, unless it's in a private manner," former Ferguson mayor Brian Fletcher told the radio station. "He's had a chance to think about this. For everybody's sake, both the community and Darren Wilson's sake and the Brown family, I think he's made the right decision."
If Wilson did nothing wrong then how is this the right decision?
That may or may not be true - I understand that Wilson's DNA was found on the bracelet worn by Johnson.
Johnson didn't attack anyone, so no there was no overwhelming eye witness or forensic evidence saying he did.
DNA of Brown on his pistol. Wilson testimony. Consistent with Witness 10 sight of struggle, with Brown bent at waist and inside driver window.- a struggle over Wilson’s service pistol
Which forensic evidence was that? What overwhelming eye witness testimony? All we have is Wilson's word for it since he never turned his service weapon in to be examined by forensics.
Officer is 200lbs, Brown nearly 300lbs. Obvious size difference as Brown is 50% bigger (which is not the same as height).No, Wilson and Brown were almost the same size. Wilson was not "much smaller" than Brown.- the return of the 292 pound Brown re-engage the much smaller officer
Witness 10.- the firing of additional defensive rounds as necessary to halt Brown’s violence
"As necessary" no, there is no forensic evidence or overwhelming eye witness testimony suggesting those shots were necessary.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...o-indictment-in-michael-brown-shooting//#more
There are certainly easier ways to randomly execute unarmed "gentle giants".
Not surprised your racist legal website got it wrong so many times.
Dorian Johnson recounts the last day of Michael Brown.
It could also be just plain old stupidity, but we'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he has a political agenda. Which he states he does have. The site is run by a securities lawyer who wants to be a big shot in Republican politics. You'll notice how we pointed out the errors and fabrications throughout this thread. Including the outright misquoting in the press of the Medical Examiner who had to go public and correct the record. You site that brings this up but fails to correct the erroneous information. That's either due to his political agenda or stupidity.This result has not been unexpected, as the overwhelming weight of both the eye witness and forensic evidence has been entirely consistent with Officer Wilson’s narrative of self-defense, including:
- Wilson being attacked by Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson in his patrol vehicle
- a struggle over Wilson’s service pistol
- shots fired inside the vehicle (which forensic examination confirmed caused a contact gun shot wound to Brown’s right hand)
- the temporary flight of Brown upon those initial gunshots
- the return of the 292 pound Brown re-engage the much smaller officer
- the firing of additional defensive rounds as necessary to halt Brown’s violence
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...o-indictment-in-michael-brown-shooting//#more
There are certainly easier ways to randomly execute unarmed "gentle giants".
You do know that the contact wound was misreported and that Dorian Johnson's testimony states that no attack occurred.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...uson-documents-what-michael-browns-friend-saw
Oh and your legal link has an admitted conservative agenda. Not just bias, agenda:
Legal Insurrection now is one of the most widely cited and influential conservative websites, with hundreds of thousands of visitors per month. Our work has been highlighted by top conservative radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and Professor Jacobson regularly appears as a guest on radio shows across the nation.
And therefore it they point out that the sun rises in the east, we should scream bias?
The DA seeks an indictment when he has probable cause and believes a person to be guilty. For someone who claims to support civil rights, I can't think of a more illiberal and reactionary view than the ones you just expressed. I was unable to find (or fathom) where on earth you got the benighted and legally primitive view that the fundamental goal of State prosecutors is "vigorously seeking victory" regardless of merit or justice. Just so you know, American law's ethical requirements for prosecutors is a tad more than that of the Church's Grand Inquisitor Torquemada or the Stalin's Vyshinsky:...
LOL...in case you were not aware, he is a witness as well. And yep, under the law if the Grand Jury wants to hear his side of the story they can request it. He could, like many, have refused it but he appeared without a lawyer and answered their questions.Nor was he interest in finding facts. Giving Wilson the opportunity of a soliloquy is not fact finding.
You finished Max?
There is only one ringmaster in the circus known as the grand jury. That is the prosecutor. And unless he wants something to happen, it does not happen unless he is the most incompetent boob in history.
You wiil not disprove that because you can't.
NEXT
You mean unless the prosecutor wants to indict a ham sandwich, it does not happen? Well yes Athena, that was the point. Rather than charge someone who did not meet the standard of probable cause, he let a grand jury decide. Perhaps you have a serious point beyond your expectation that anytime a white cop shoots and kills a black man the white cop must also be charged and convicted of murder, regardless of the evidence?
If not, then all you are doing is promoting a black racialist meme. Discussions based on principled stands of law, justice, or rights are pointless. "Me hate white cops" or "me hate Negros" is not really amenable to reason - it is little more than knuckle dragging tribalism.
Perhaps you missed Nate Silver's data?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/
Statistics show Athena is correct.
That may or may not be true - I understand that Wilson's DNA was found on the bracelet worn by Johnson.Johnson didn't attack anyone, so no there was no overwhelming eye witness or forensic evidence saying he did.
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".
That may or may not be true - I understand that Wilson's DNA was found on the bracelet worn by Johnson.ksen said:Johnson didn't attack anyone, so no there was no overwhelming eye witness or forensic evidence saying he did.
DNA of Brown on his pistol. Wilson testimony. Consistent with Witness 10 sight of struggle, with Brown bent at waist and inside driver window.- a struggle over Wilson’s service pistol
Which forensic evidence was that? What overwhelming eye witness testimony? All we have is Wilson's word for it since he never turned his service weapon in to be examined by forensics.
Officer is 200lbs, Brown nearly 300lbs. Obvious size difference as Brown is 50% bigger (which is not the same as height).No, Wilson and Brown were almost the same size. Wilson was not "much smaller" than Brown.- the return of the 292 pound Brown re-engage the much smaller officer
Witness 10.- the firing of additional defensive rounds as necessary to halt Brown’s violence
"As necessary" no, there is no forensic evidence or overwhelming eye witness testimony suggesting those shots were necessary.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...o-indictment-in-michael-brown-shooting//#more
There are certainly easier ways to randomly execute unarmed "gentle giants".
Not surprised your racist legal website got it wrong so many times.
Dorian Johnson recounts the last day of Michael Brown.
LOL...you mean the convicted liar? You mean the buddy (assisting shoplifter) 'witness' that said Brown was shot in the back? You mean the same guy who said Brown was merely turned round and put his hands up?
While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown seems to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford.
The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.
In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."
So other than the fact that the blood trail that shows he came back 21 feet, and that Brown was not shot in the back, the guys honest?
Video surveillance tapes not shown by the police appear to show Michael Brown paying for his cigarellos.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-show
While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown seems to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford.
The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.
In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."
So, what shoplifting?
So other than the fact that the blood trail that shows he came back 21 feet, and that Brown was not shot in the back, the guys honest?
Johnson never said Brown was shot in the back.
Video surveillance tapes not shown by the police appear to show Michael Brown paying for his cigarellos.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-show
So, what shoplifting?
So other than the fact that the blood trail that shows he came back 21 feet, and that Brown was not shot in the back, the guys honest?
Johnson never said Brown was shot in the back.
Eh, Johnson's testimony confirmed that Brown stole the cigarellos. He claims he tried talking Brown out of it because the store had surveillance cameras. But Brown apparently was unmoved and seemed not to care about the repercussions of his actions. Johnson said that Brown acted strange that day. He couldn't understand why Brown chose to fight the cop rather than cooperate. Johnson's testimony is an illuminating read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Dorian_JohnsonJohnson testified that on their walk back home, Brown had the cigarillos in his hands in plain sight and that two Ferguson police cars passed them, but did not stop.[84] When Wilson encountered them, he told the two to "get the fuck on the sidewalk" and Johnson told him they would be off the street shortly as they were close to their destination.[85] Johnson testifed that Wilson was the aggressor from the beginning and that for no apparent reason, he backed his vehicle up and tried to open his door, but Brown shut it, preventing him from getting out.[85] Johnson said that Wilson then reached out and grabbed Brown by the neck and the two were engaged in a "tug of war", and Wilson said "I'll shoot". Johnson said he never saw Brown hit Wilson and didn't think Brown grabbed for Wilson's gun, but that a shot was fired.[86][85] At that point, Johnson said they both ran and Wilson fired while Brown was running away, and that Brown turned around and "at that time Big Mike's hands was up, but not so much in the air, because he had been struck".[86] Johnson told the jurors that Brown said "I don't have a gun" and that he was mad and tried to say again "I don't have a gun", but "before he can say the second sentence or before he can even get it out, that's when the several more shots came." In his testimony, Johnson maintained that Brown did not run at Wilson prior to the fatal shots.[86]