Michael Brown Shooting Cont

[Wee baby Shamus]

Unless the step-father was also calling for peaceful protests from the beginning it does make the statement of

pretty much wrong. Unless he wasn't trying to suggest the parents changed their minds?

Brown's mother was standing right next to Brown's step father and she didn't stop him from voicing a violent protest.

[Wee baby Shamus]

No, do you? I wasn't even the one making the "jurors are racist" argument, I chalked the result up to the prosecutor deliberately flubbing it. When you consider the standard of probable cause applied for grand juries the options are one or other or both, and from what I've seen of the transcript I put my money squarely on the prosecutor.

No, I don't. And neither do you. It is possible the three black people on the Grand Jury also voted for no indictment.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

The prosecutor said the most credible witnesses flip flopped and came to support Wilson's story. This same prosecutor has taken 5 other police who shot and killed people before grand juries and none have been indicted, yet his overall rate is high. So yes I think it's completely fair to say that Wilson wasn't indicted because the prosecutor didn't want him to be.

And when you add in his close familial ties to the police and that his father was a cop who was killed by a black man, I think the incredible bias becomes more difficult to deny.

Are you implying the witness was forced to flip flop? What about all the testimony that was tossed because they were blatant lies?

[TrueMetis]

Brown's mother was standing right next to Brown's step father and she didn't stop him from voicing a violent protest.

You mean the women who just broke down? I'm sure she's in a great position to be talking someone pissed off down.

[Summah]

TPTWP, I'm saying that I wouldn't describe people who flip flopped as credible witnesses. As to why they flip flopped, I don't know, but they could have been incentivized to do it, like dropping minor charges, forgiving hundreds I'm parking tickets etc.

[karaddin]

No, I don't. And neither do you. It is possible the three black people on the Grand Jury also voted for no indictment.

I certainly accept that is possible given my belief that it's the conclusion the Prosecutor ensured they would reach.

[Jslay427]

I certainly accept that is possible given my belief that it's the conclusion the Prosecutor ensured they would reach.

But you absolutely deny the fact that Wilson MIGHT have acted correctly. You don't even consider it a possibility. what's so sad about this whole situation is that if Wilson had happened to be any other race or ethnicity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

what an excellent question. There appears to be considerable evidence to indict (not convict necessarily, but indict). There seems to be a large amount of desire to see a trial. There were multiple witnesses and forensic evidence, which is usually more than enough to indict. In 160000 cases that went to a grand jury all but 11 went to indictment.

So why not this one, indeed?

I think there's a real danger here that progressives and liberals are losing sight of the larger problem with grand juries out of frustration that the grand jury in this case didn't issue any indictments for Wilson. I worry that people tossing around quotes about how prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich and about how federal grand juries have an indictment rate of 99.9% of cases are losing sight of the fact that these things were meant to be serious criticisms of the grand jury system as it's developed.

Pre-Michael Brown, the progressive position was that grand juries were, at best, useless rubber stamps for the local prosecutor's office. Here's The Daily Beast advocating for chucking the grand jury system entirely only 9 months ago.

I think there are two separate, but related questions that need to be asked.

First, is it the case that Wilson's grand jury investigation was treated differently than your average criminal suspect? The answer is clearly yes. He was treated differently. He was treated preferentially. I don't think there is any serious dispute about this at all

That being said, the second question is, in an ideal grand jury system, would we prefer criminal suspects being treated like Wilson, or treated like your average criminal suspect is currently treated? And I think the answer is, and has been for a long time, that we really want all criminal suspects being treated like Wilson was treated.

It's disturbing to watch a parade of progressive commentators go on and on about how the grand jury is supposed to be the "prosecutor's show" and how they should have been able to indict a ham sandwich, when, if you had asked these same people seven months ago what they thought of the grand jury system, these would have been their criticisms of that system.

[Wee baby Shamus]

But you absolutely deny the fact that Wilson MIGHT have acted correctly. You don't even consider it a possibility. what's so sad about this whole situation is that if Wilson had happened to be any other race or ethnicity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yep, you are correct sir.

[Wee baby Shamus]

I think there's a real danger here that progressives and liberals are losing sight of the larger problem with grand juries out of frustration that the grand jury in this case didn't issue any indictments for Wilson. I worry that people tossing around quotes about how prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich and about how federal grand juries have an indictment rate of 99.9% of cases are losing sight of the fact that these things were meant to be serious criticisms of the grand jury system as it's developed.

Pre-Michael Brown, the progressive position was that grand juries were, at best, useless rubber stamps for the local prosecutor's office. Here's The Daily Beast advocating for chucking the grand jury system entirely only 9 months ago.

I think there are two separate, but related questions that need to be asked.

First, is it the case that Wilson's grand jury investigation was treated differently than your average criminal suspect? The answer is clearly yes. He was treated differently. He was treated preferentially. I don't think there is any serious dispute about this at all

That being said, the second question is, in an ideal grand jury system, would we prefer criminal suspects being treated like Wilson, or treated like your average criminal suspect is currently treated? And I think the answer is, and has been for a long time, that we really want all criminal suspects being treated like Wilson was treated.

It's disturbing to watch a parade of progressive commentators go on and on about how the grand jury is supposed to be the "prosecutor's show" and how they should have been able to indict a ham sandwich, when, if you had asked these same people seven months ago what they thought of the grand jury system, these would have been their criticisms of that system.

True dat brother.

[karaddin]

But you absolutely deny the fact that Wilson MIGHT have acted correctly. You don't even consider it a possibility. what's so sad about this whole situation is that if Wilson had happened to be any other race or ethnicity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes it's poor anti white racism that is the problem here. The unarmed kid had at worst committed minor shop lifting, then jay walking, then scuffled with a police officer. Worst case scenario should be that he just gets away, not that he winds up killed by the police. The use of deadly force is allowed far too frequently. So yes, I think that he should have had to at least face a fucking trial for it - I'm not predetermining what the outcome of that trial should have been, because there are some awfully shitty laws in your country that might indeed conclude what he did was lawful, but it was still wrong regardless.

It's disturbing to watch a parade of progressive commentators go on and on about how the grand jury is supposed to be the "prosecutor's show" and how they should have been able to indict a ham sandwich, when, if you had asked these same people seven months ago what they thought of the grand jury system, these would have been their criticisms of that system.

I don't think the commentary is so much it's supposed to be the prosecutors show so much as it is the prosecutors show, so with that as the current reality we can judge the current outcome. I agree with your larger concern, but really it seems an odd process to be following to determine whether there is a trial in the first place so rather than fixing it I'd get rid of that approach altogether.

[Shryke]

I think there's a real danger here that progressives and liberals are losing sight of the larger problem with grand juries out of frustration that the grand jury in this case didn't issue any indictments for Wilson. I worry that people tossing around quotes about how prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich and about how federal grand juries have an indictment rate of 99.9% of cases are losing sight of the fact that these things were meant to be serious criticisms of the grand jury system as it's developed.

Pre-Michael Brown, the progressive position was that grand juries were, at best, useless rubber stamps for the local prosecutor's office. Here's The Daily Beast advocating for chucking the grand jury system entirely only 9 months ago.

I think there are two separate, but related questions that need to be asked.

First, is it the case that Wilson's grand jury investigation was treated differently than your average criminal suspect? The answer is clearly yes. He was treated differently. He was treated preferentially. I don't think there is any serious dispute about this at all

That being said, the second question is, in an ideal grand jury system, would we prefer criminal suspects being treated like Wilson, or treated like your average criminal suspect is currently treated? And I think the answer is, and has been for a long time, that we really want all criminal suspects being treated like Wilson was treated.

It's disturbing to watch a parade of progressive commentators go on and on about how the grand jury is supposed to be the "prosecutor's show" and how they should have been able to indict a ham sandwich, when, if you had asked these same people seven months ago what they thought of the grand jury system, these would have been their criticisms of that system.

The only example of use of what you consider the former progressive position on this issue is calling for chucking the entire system out. Which squares perfectly with the current reaction to the Grand Jury verdict. Your last paragraph doesn't square with your characterization of what you think is the progressive position.

Beyond that problem with your post, there's the fact the progressives aren't calilng out any problems with the grand jury system as a whole here. They are bringing up how a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich as a way to show how the prosecutor here didn't even try, not as a complaint against the grand jury system.

I think you are too busy reading your own issues with grand juries into comments that have nothing to do with that.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

TPTWP, I'm saying that I wouldn't describe people who flip flopped as credible witnesses. As to why they flip flopped, I don't know, but they could have been incentivized to do it, like dropping minor charges, forgiving hundreds I'm parking tickets etc.

From the NY Times,

"Many witnesses said they first began to pay attention while the two were wrestling at the S.U.V. window, though they usually said they could not see enough to know what was going on. But even when the confrontation broke out into the open — when Officer Wilson chased the teenager, ordered him to halt, and then fired two volleys of five shots — the accounts diverged.

“I see the officer running behind shooting,” one witness said.

“He did not take off running after Michael,” another said to the prosecutors.

Some witnesses, whom Mr. McCulloch described as the most credible and consistent, hewed more closely to Officer Wilson’s account.

“I could say for sure he never put his hands up,” said a man who was working in the area and did not live there, and whose testimony strongly bolstered Officer Wilson’s case. “He ran to the officer full charge.”

Others spoke just as confidently that events unfolded in a completely different way.

“Yes, I personally saw him on his knees with his hands in the air,” one witness said in a recorded interview with federal officials that was played for the grand jury before he testified. The prosecutor questioning that witness did not hide her skepticism, highlighting the contradictions in his various accounts.

“Basically just about everything that you said on Aug. 13, and much of what you said today isn’t consistent with the physical evidence that we have in this case, O.K.?” she said to him."

They had so many "witnesses" lying about what they saw. One witness said Wilson was standing over Brown shooting him. We knew with the coroner's report that he wasn't shot in the back or kneeling down. Blatant lies

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

True dat brother.

To be clear, the circle jerk of obvious trolling and race-baiting between you, prince and Jslay is objectively far more disgusting.

The difference is that I expect nothing better from the three of you, whereas I think that many of these progressive commentators have good intentions, and are just wrong on this issue.

[karaddin]

Thanks for showing probable cause to indict for a trial, from what I read yesterday these conflicting accounts alone are sufficient to have a trial to sort it out!

ETA: Obviously that was at TPTWP not Nestor

[Wee baby Shamus]

To be clear, the circle jerk of obvious trolling and race-baiting between you, prince and Jslay is objectively far more disgusting.

The difference is that I expect nothing better from the three of you, whereas I think that many of these progressive commentators have good intentions, and are just wrong on this issue.

I certainly haven't been race-baiting.

If you think I have then prove it by linking posts that prove me wrong.

[Jslay427]

Yes it's poor anti white racism that is the problem here. The unarmed kid had at worst committed minor shop lifting, then jay walking, then scuffled with a police officer. Worst case scenario should be that he just gets away, not that he winds up killed by the police. The use of deadly force is allowed far too frequently. So yes, I think that he should have had to at least face a fucking trial for it - I'm not predetermining what the outcome of that trial should have been, because there are some awfully shitty laws in your country that might indeed conclude what he did was lawful, but it was still wrong regardless.

Your posts have given the impression that you are convinced of Wilson's guilt beyond a doubt.

[Jslay427]

I certainly haven't been race-baiting.

If you think I have then prove it by linking posts that prove me wrong.

we are race baiting because we disagree with his point of view.

[karaddin]

Your posts have given the impression that you are convinced of Wilson's guilt beyond a doubt.

I'm convinced that there should have been a trial beyond a doubt, I'm convinced that what he did was wrong. Wrong isn't necessarily illegal though. I think it very likely that he's a racist piece of shit cop although I am not certain of this and I am convinced that this would have played out differently had Brown not been black.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

we are race baiting because we disagree with his point of view.

Just out of curiosity, in terms of the grand jury proceedings, which point of view do we disagree on?