This is striking me as sour as Zimmerman's lack of conviction did.
And I thought Zimmerman should have been convicted as he initiated a confrontation that took a while to come to fruition against someone who clearly had done nothing but at one point confront Zimmerman for stalking him.
The twist is that the folks in Ferguson and their supporters, including actors and celebrities are putting this in a similar basket. Not factoring in that Brown had just committed a violent crime. And that by every recent indication he would do it again. And by corroborating medical information and ballistic tests, he seemed to have attacked the cop at close range.
Don't bring Trayvon Martin into the same sack of shit with Brown--by all indications, at least that day, a piece of horseshit, who confronted a cop and seemingly attacked him leading directly to his death.
Trayvon Martin, before his death, went to the store to get himself and his sister snacks and defended himself against someone who he probably felt was going to hurt/rob him.
Michael Brown was a big, piece of shit who just committed a crime and attacked a cop and was shot dead. Please stop comparing the cases like they are related in any fucking way, shape or form?
Once again, 20 years after the OJ case, the country is racially divided because of a case like this and let's be frank? because we are a country with a HUGE racist history and influence. With police forces that way too often abuse their authority and are in it for the wrong reasons.
I don't have the answers. Maybe time?
And if PA GIants agrees with me, I promise to shower with an SOS pad.
RE: RE: National Bar Association is calling for a trial Â
Last night, the National Bar Association, "the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges," issued a statement calling for Federal Charges to be brought against Officer Wilson.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.....
All that says is that you can be a judge or a lawyer, see all the facts, and still be ruled by race. It's sad.
I think it is going to add to the problems down there. It will fuel the protests which is really stupid on the Bars part
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
Some people like to simplify a very complex series of Â
Inner City, poor America has decades old problems that compound every generation that is lost.
My suburbanites speak out of their hat having no knowledge of what inner city America is about. It was not a couple of bad apples looting, it was more then that. Mindset differs then those who live in a comfortable setting, sense of right and wrong is way different.
with Randy in that the Trayvon death was more troubling to me because we seemed to be expanding the use of deadly force to armed citizens. One thing for police to have this power but anybody who joins a citizen's patrol? Scary.
OTOH, most people aren't in to drawing distinctions. In both cases an unarmed black youth was killed. In neither case were any of us eyewitnesses so we can't really know what went down. Either side of each story could be true. Maybe Trayvon went off and would have beaten Z to death. Or maybe Wilson lost it and said fuck it, I'm killing this dude. I don't know.
The main problem is you can't use any one case to prove anything but without a specific case too many people don't take the issues involved seriously so there's great temptation to use one case as a catalyst for change. Can't blame folks too much for doing this because the underlying issues are real and too many people just blithely dismiss them.
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
there is the probability a crime was committed and if he can reasonably convict the potential defendant. Obviously the DA did not see anyway he could win. In all likelihood under normal circumstances, he would have declined prosecution. But to calm the neighborhood he brought the evidence to a Grand Jury. He presented as much evidence as possible so that when the indictment was turned down he could say he fairly attempted to indict officer Wilson.
Why should he go to trial simply to satisfy people when he knew he had no case? Why would he waste millions of tax payer dollars just to have an aquital then have the subsequent riots anyway after wasting tax payer money.
Some of the people here are basing their views on the lies that were made at the time of the shooting and compounded by lack of knowledge of the use of firearms in self defense(i.e., why didn't Wilson shoot him in the legs, why did he shoot so many times; why didn't he know how many rounds he fired). Grasping at straws.
Then there were the lies about Brown surrendering with his hands in the air - disproved by the 3 forensic pathologists, one who was hired by the Browns.
Simply put, DAs do not bring people to trial to satisfy the multitudes.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
In addition, a special note goes to PA, who continues to act as if the limited amount of information that leaked out of the Grand Jury room was sufficient upon which to determine guilt or innocence. PA, you have earned the disgust, dislike and antipathy of a very large number of people here, in a way that will never recede. The fact that this makes you proud is disturbing, and not at all impressive. The fact that it include people who would otherwise tend to agree with you is worse.
And as for this:
Quote:
There was only one outcome that would have potentially avoided rioting: White cop frying in an electric chair.
That is thousands of light years from from right. The only outcome that would have avoided rioting was for a fairly handled grand jury to hand this off to a regularly jury to determine guilt or innocence, based upon evidence that all of the world could see. The DA probably did Wilson no favor, especially if he was innocent. The stigma would have been ameliorated to a much larger degree if a jury viewing public evidence, as opposed to a GJ viewing evidence the world never saw, found him innocent.
has been made public. As section said, the DA knew this case was a loser, and the GJ was only a formality to placate the angry mob. It may not satisfy purists, but I believe he did the right thing.
Wrong again and if the circle jerk of folks that cause trouble on thread after thread don't like me, I will sleep just fine. And again, you missed previous threads before the GJ leaks where I noted what happened. That was based on common sense and the data that was at hand.
People don't like me? For what? Because I told them they were backing the wrong horse here and I was right? Because I said Brown was a thug and a piece of shit early on once I saw the video? Because I am not afraid to say I don't give a crap about Brown? None of you do. You are just pretending because if you are not, please name the other convicted felons that have tried to kill police officers that you feel sorry for.
I will wait, lets hear the names of those convicts. You are full of crap.
"So many here...
manh george : 9:23 pm : link : reply
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting."
Exactly, if it's not making it past the GJ, it's not going to make it in a trial.
I don't care an awful lot about Brown per se. I care about the possibility that justice was subverted. I also care about the extraordinarily low number of cases in which law officers involved in a death are found to have committed a wrongful act. I just don't trust the numbers. It's better the FBI, where the number is zero, but not by that much. (See: Albuquerque)
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
I don't care an awful lot about Brown per se. I care about the possibility that justice was subverted. I also care about the extraordinarily low number of cases in which law officers involved in a death are found to have committed a wrongful act. I just don't trust the numbers. It's better the FBI, where the number is zero, but not by that much. (See: Albuquerque)
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
Love to have that conversation. Saw a lot of the PD in action during my career in the FD. The good and the bad. 73' thu 10'. lots of stories as told through my eyes. Not a subject for BBI.
Brown assaulted a police officer with intent to kill Â
That is who you are supporting. Subverting justice? Sure that happens but I noted that this was the wrong horse to back for that right from the beginning. I am not a big fan of the police in general but people like you apparently were led right to the water and told to drink and you did...And now you and others have to pretend you did it on your own. You got fooled, owned, played.
Others claiming that they are so sad a child was murdered...please. He would have been a convicted felon and no one would give a shit.
The only outcome that would have avoided rioting was for a fairly handled grand jury to hand this off to a regularly jury to determine guilt or innocence, based upon evidence that all of the world could see. The DA probably did Wilson no favor, especially if he was innocent. The stigma would have been ameliorated to a much larger degree if a jury viewing public evidence, as opposed to a GJ viewing evidence the world never saw, found him innocent.
The suggestion that an indictment alone would have been sufficient to avoid the rioting is ridiculous.
If the DA wanted it to get past the GJ, it would have gotten past the GJ. He affirmatively decided not to present a point of view.
In a trial, there would have been a prosecutor who was all in representing the people. Who did that here?
I think he knew he had a loser. He couldn't get a case past the GJ the other 4 times he tried. Would it have been better if he just came out and said there is now way I can get this past a GJ? He was in a no win situation IMHO. I give him kudos for doing his job when he knew he would be looked at as a clown by the national media. For those who say he should have asked for a special prosecutor, that's not what he was elected for. While we may not agree with him, he did the job. I at least respect that.
It was the video. He was a punk thug. I have known my share. The way he behaved in that store, his body language, grabbing the clerk near the neck. I knew what he was right there.
And then the apologists came out...saying "He was just stealing $50 worth of cigars...it was basically shoplifting"....but it wasn't and they got played. They played themselves. It tells a lot about people though...kind of scary.
that even before it went to a GJ, there was irrefutable proof that Wilson was innocent of any form of culpability?
It appears you are bent on bringing Officer Wilson to trial just to do it. If the DA thought he was guilty of something and there was a likelihood of a conviction he would have filed charges. But in this case, he either did not see a crime or he did not see a possibility of a conviction. In either case he would not waste time or money knowing he would lose.
Sadly, it appears a man lost his life by his own actions after allegedly having committed a felony (aggrevated battery and robbery). Michael Brown attacked a PO in his car and forensic evidence appears to prove he had not surrended, but decided to re-attack a smaller individual.
but it was gone. So an interesting thing that happened during the protests went fairly unreported by the media in the midst of all the sensationalism. At one point an AA woman fainted etc and needed medical attention. Some of the protesters stopped, brought her to the police who put down their shields and helped her into a vehicle to go to the hospital. If only...
that even before it went to a GJ, there was irrefutable proof that Wilson was innocent of any form of culpability?
God, you are plague on the face of BBI. I used to think you were just annoying. I was wrong.
Oh please spare me your sanctimonious BS. There was no case. The DA knew this. The whole GJ thing was to placate the mob, which includes people like you and the media.
There should have just been an internal investigation and that's it.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
It's always been my understanding that the GJ looks at the evidence and decides if it seems fact or fiction which then helps them decide if it's worth going to actual trial.
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Wilsons statement:
Quote:
Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street.
I comprehend it fine. You don't seem to comprehend the FACT that his own dept stated unequivocally that he had received NO call's regarding the robbery, that a different officer was handling that robbery
Your getting testy over the fact that this is an inconsistency that McCullogh failed to address, or point out to the GJ and is catching shit for it.
You can sit there and assume all you want about the radio calls but this is what his own dept stated. In addition to that is the fact that Wilson claimed in his GJ testimony that "he "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery and called for backup", but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications.
these are two major inconsistencies with his testimony that McCullogh never addressed
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
It's always been my understanding that the GJ looks at the evidence and decides if it seems fact or fiction which then helps them decide if it's worth going to actual trial.
Deciding on fact or fiction is deciding guilt or innocence.
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Wilsons statement:
Quote:
Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street.
I comprehend it fine. You don't seem to comprehend the FACT that his own dept stated unequivocally that he had received NO call's regarding the robbery, that a different officer was handling that robbery
Your getting testy over the fact that this is an inconsistency that McCullogh failed to address, or point out to the GJ and is catching shit for it.
You can sit there and assume all you want about the radio calls but this is what his own dept stated. In addition to that is the fact that Wilson claimed in his GJ testimony that "he "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery and called for backup", but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications.
these are two major inconsistencies with his testimony that McCullogh never addressed
You realize that he can still hear calls that go over the radio to other officers...right?
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Do you have anything to back that up?
Because I'd say anyone of any race would have been shot in this scenario. Being black had nothing to do with him getting shot. Trying to take the officers gun, assaulting the officer, being very big and strong, and charging the officer at a full charge is what got him shot.
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Do you have anything to back that up?
Do you mean hard evidence? No, it's mostly one of those anecdotally-based statements, similar to confidently (and IMO justifiably) claiming as fact that riots would have been just as bad had the verdict been announced at 9:30 am.
Ferguson will be rebuilt in no time. Why, I imagine Eric Holder will donate his personal time and effort and is probably picking up a hammer right now. He did so much to improve the situation there already.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
manhgeorge is correct, as far as I know. The problem is if the DA cannot get an indictment, using the lower burden of proof required, how would he get a conviction in a trial with the much Higher burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
I understand people being angry over what seems an unnecessary shooting. But the unnecessary part apparently was built on lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted by themselves or admissions that they really did not see the incident but repeated what they heard) and a deep seated mistrust on the police in similar cases.
Unfortunately this false accusation will now perpetuate the feeling that the police target certain minority groups, which is somewhat true in many areas of the country. But does burning down your home town and neighbors business help your cause? Any positive public sentiment and sympathy is lost to the majority of the country because of these actions.
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
I find that the argument of some here really comes down to people should be brought to trial to satisfy the mob even when the evidence does not warrant it. This strikes me as a very dangerous precedent for individual liberty. And in the end if the person is found not guilty, at basically a pointless trial, the mob is not satisfied anyway. It just extend false expectations of what the mob considers "justice".
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
If you commit more violent crimes, the greater the chance of getting killed. 13% of the population represents 37% of the inmate population. Also a disproportionate number.
The article doesn't say the circumstances of the shootings. We have a hard number 21 to 1, only. Were the alleged crimes identical? Did the suspects act the same during arrest?
It would seem that in order to show unequal treatment, the crimes would have to be categorized and compared.
Never the less, it does seem an inordinate number of shootings of African Americans
haven't read a lot of the comments here and obviously have not had a chance to comment but my initial thoughts...
1. McCullough has/had no ties whatsoever to the Ferguson Police Department and does not know the officer involved.
2. Many prosecutors have law enforcement ties, that's why a lot of them run for/seek the office.
3. McCullough has gotten indictments/convictions of police officers in the past.
4. He has been the PA for a long time and no one before has challenged his bias or independence or integrity.
5. I hate to say it but as one poster noted, there were going to be riots anyway, whenever or however the verdict was announced.
6. Don't know it has been commented on here or if anyone saw it but shortly after the verdict was announced, Michael Brown's mother, who claimed to be calling for peace, went out and talked about herself and got the crowd all riled up. Next, his stepfather just started screaming "burn the ...bleep...down!"
7. Unfortunately for the City of Ferguson and all of the St. Louis region, nobody is talking to anyone about the real issues they should be talking about. Everyone is screaming and hurling insults at the other side. I hate to say there are sides but there obviously are.
8. The real problem lies with the Governor. Nixon has kissed goodbye any political future he might have had. They had 3 months to prepare for what happened Monday night and blew it. Not near enough National Guard and not deployed properly. Trying to negotiate "terms of engagement" with a headless crowd of protesters was a mistake. Sure there were peaceful protesters who want needed change but you couldn't pick them out from the crowd of looters and rioters.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
sphinx said:
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
section125 said:
manhgeorge is correct, as far as I know. The problem is if the DA cannot get an indictment, using the lower burden of proof required, how would he get a conviction in a trial with the much Higher burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
I understand people being angry over what seems an unnecessary shooting. But the unnecessary part apparently was built on lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted by themselves or admissions that they really did not see the incident but repeated what they heard) and a deep seated mistrust on the police in similar cases.
Unfortunately this false accusation will now perpetuate the feeling that the police target certain minority groups, which is somewhat true in many areas of the country. But does burning down your home town and neighbors business help your cause? Any positive public sentiment and sympathy is lost to the majority of the country because of these actions.
There are those who, from the very beginning, didn't think the prosecutor wanted an indictment. You say lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted ...), but some were steadfast, and that would seem to be probable cause, something for an adversarial trial to decide.
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
If you commit more violent crimes, the greater the chance of getting killed. 13% of the population represents 37% of the inmate population. Also a disproportionate number.
The article doesn't say the circumstances of the shootings. We have a hard number 21 to 1, only. Were the alleged crimes identical? Did the suspects act the same during arrest?
It would seem that in order to show unequal treatment, the crimes would have to be categorized and compared.
Never the less, it does seem an inordinate number of shootings of African Americans
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
That is thousands of light years from from right. The only outcome that would have avoided rioting was for a fairly handled grand jury to hand this off to a regularly jury to determine guilt or innocence, based upon evidence that all of the world could see. The DA probably did Wilson no favor, especially if he was innocent. The stigma would have been ameliorated to a much larger degree if a jury viewing public evidence, as opposed to a GJ viewing evidence the world never saw, found him innocent.
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your statement. Do you think the whites who came in from out of town wearing Guy Fawkes masks give a rats ass about Michael Brown? Do you think the New Black Panthers care about anything other than he was black? Once the media found an opportunity to fill their 24 hour news cycle the only thing that would have prevented the riots was a 1st degree murder conviction. And even that verdict might have led to some celebratory vandalism. There probably would have been less participation from Ferguson residents, but some nasty shit definitely would have gone down.
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Or maybe, just maybe, black people get thrown in jail for crimes that other races (not just white people, but mostly) are able to get off with other terms and punishments.
Anyway what are you contending?
At "best", its a socioeconomic cycle where black communities stay impoverished through imprisonment/crime/lack of advancement.
At "worst", one could read your statement as saying that black people are just predisposed to committing more crime, which is ridiculous.
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001827 section125 said:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001827 section125 said:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
No, not at all. You really do not know me. Take a look at my wedding photos and you might retract your statement.
My comment was simply about ALL of the stats on the topic and not specifically about black people being 21 times more likely to be shot by cops. You might find additional stats that backup the reasons why that is occurring.
haven't read a lot of the comments here and obviously have not had a chance to comment but my initial thoughts...
1. McCullough has/had no ties whatsoever to the Ferguson Police Department and does not know the officer involved.
2. Many prosecutors have law enforcement ties, that's why a lot of them run for/seek the office.
3. McCullough has gotten indictments/convictions of police officers in the past.
4. He has been the PA for a long time and no one before has challenged his bias or independence or integrity.
5. I hate to say it but as one poster noted, there were going to be riots anyway, whenever or however the verdict was announced.
6. Don't know it has been commented on here or if anyone saw it but shortly after the verdict was announced, Michael Brown's mother, who claimed to be calling for peace, went out and talked about herself and got the crowd all riled up. Next, his stepfather just started screaming "burn the ...bleep...down!"
7. Unfortunately for the City of Ferguson and all of the St. Louis region, nobody is talking to anyone about the real issues they should be talking about. Everyone is screaming and hurling insults at the other side. I hate to say there are sides but there obviously are.
8. The real problem lies with the Governor. Nixon has kissed goodbye any political future he might have had. They had 3 months to prepare for what happened Monday night and blew it. Not near enough National Guard and not deployed properly. Trying to negotiate "terms of engagement" with a headless crowd of protesters was a mistake. Sure there were peaceful protesters who want needed change but you couldn't pick them out from the crowd of looters and rioters.
1)He's the county attorney for St Louis County. Fergurson lies within St Louis County, of course he has ties within that Dept.
Quote:
In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers.
This just came out so i have not verified it yet, so keep that in mind.
2) True but i bet its a very small number that have anywhere close to these kind of ties:
""McCulloch's father was a police officer and was killed on the job in 1964 by an African-American man, when McCulloch was 12, McCulloch's spokesperson Ed Magee confirmed to CNN. In addition to his father, McCulloch's brother, an uncle and a cousin all served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked as a clerk at the department.""
3)What kind of cases against police has he prosecuted? Also what is the percentage that he prosecuted vs those he choose not to prosecute? The reason why i ask this is i have tried for 2 days to find this info out and i can't come up with anything detailing his record with regards to prosecuting police
4) This is completely wrong. He has had quite a few issues in the past. Starting with his publicity grab of going after Guns and Roses for a concert they held that people got injured at, he has had a few other head scratching moments that illustrate him badly.
He had an issue where he outed a local govt whistle blower:
Quote:
n 1997, an employee of the St. Louis County Economic Council named Russ Signorino contacted the FBI to report what he said was improper behavior by a member of the county executive’s cabinet. He also sent reporters an anonymous fax from a Kinko’s in Creve Coeur, Mo. Claiming that the fax contained a threat, McCulloch gave a grand jury subpoena to the county police, who then used it to obtain security footage from Kinko’s showing that Signorino had sent the message.
The only hitch? McCulloch never told the grand jury what he was doing, and he later admitted that Signorino had never issued a threat or committed a crime. No matter: Signorino was forced to resign anyway.
And in 2001 he called a GJ over the shooting deaths of 2 suspects by undercover officers in which he actually got caught lying:
Quote:
McCulloch convened another grand jury after a pair of undercover drug officers shot and killed two men, a suspect and his passenger, outside a Jack in the Box in Berkeley, Mo. The officers told the jurors that they had fired only after the suspect tried to run them over with his car, and in his public statements about the secret proceedings, McCulloch himself repeatedly insisted that “every witness” had corroborated the officers’ version of events.
But a subsequent report by the Post-Dispatch revealed that McCulloch had lied. Only three of the 13 detectives who testified said the suspect's car had moved forward. Two of them were the shooters themselves; the third was "a detective who McCulloch later said he considered charging with perjury because his account was so at odds with the facts." According to the grand jury tapes, “four other detectives testified that they never saw the suspect’s car travel toward the officers.” A collision expert working for the Justice Department also determined that the suspect's car had remained in reverse throughout the incident. But McCulloch never brought any of this evidence before the grand jury — and, as a result, the jurors determined that the officers were right to fear for their safety. The case didn't go to trial.
And I thought Zimmerman should have been convicted as he initiated a confrontation that took a while to come to fruition against someone who clearly had done nothing but at one point confront Zimmerman for stalking him.
The twist is that the folks in Ferguson and their supporters, including actors and celebrities are putting this in a similar basket. Not factoring in that Brown had just committed a violent crime. And that by every recent indication he would do it again. And by corroborating medical information and ballistic tests, he seemed to have attacked the cop at close range.
Don't bring Trayvon Martin into the same sack of shit with Brown--by all indications, at least that day, a piece of horseshit, who confronted a cop and seemingly attacked him leading directly to his death.
Trayvon Martin, before his death, went to the store to get himself and his sister snacks and defended himself against someone who he probably felt was going to hurt/rob him.
Michael Brown was a big, piece of shit who just committed a crime and attacked a cop and was shot dead. Please stop comparing the cases like they are related in any fucking way, shape or form?
Once again, 20 years after the OJ case, the country is racially divided because of a case like this and let's be frank? because we are a country with a HUGE racist history and influence. With police forces that way too often abuse their authority and are in it for the wrong reasons.
I don't have the answers. Maybe time?
And if PA GIants agrees with me, I promise to shower with an SOS pad.
Quote:
Quote:
Last night, the National Bar Association, "the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges," issued a statement calling for Federal Charges to be brought against Officer Wilson.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.....
All that says is that you can be a judge or a lawyer, see all the facts, and still be ruled by race. It's sad.
I think it is going to add to the problems down there. It will fuel the protests which is really stupid on the Bars part
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
Inner City, poor America has decades old problems that compound every generation that is lost.
My suburbanites speak out of their hat having no knowledge of what inner city America is about. It was not a couple of bad apples looting, it was more then that. Mindset differs then those who live in a comfortable setting, sense of right and wrong is way different.
OTOH, most people aren't in to drawing distinctions. In both cases an unarmed black youth was killed. In neither case were any of us eyewitnesses so we can't really know what went down. Either side of each story could be true. Maybe Trayvon went off and would have beaten Z to death. Or maybe Wilson lost it and said fuck it, I'm killing this dude. I don't know.
The main problem is you can't use any one case to prove anything but without a specific case too many people don't take the issues involved seriously so there's great temptation to use one case as a catalyst for change. Can't blame folks too much for doing this because the underlying issues are real and too many people just blithely dismiss them.
Quote:
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Why should he go to trial simply to satisfy people when he knew he had no case? Why would he waste millions of tax payer dollars just to have an aquital then have the subsequent riots anyway after wasting tax payer money.
Some of the people here are basing their views on the lies that were made at the time of the shooting and compounded by lack of knowledge of the use of firearms in self defense(i.e., why didn't Wilson shoot him in the legs, why did he shoot so many times; why didn't he know how many rounds he fired). Grasping at straws.
Then there were the lies about Brown surrendering with his hands in the air - disproved by the 3 forensic pathologists, one who was hired by the Browns.
Simply put, DAs do not bring people to trial to satisfy the multitudes.
In addition, a special note goes to PA, who continues to act as if the limited amount of information that leaked out of the Grand Jury room was sufficient upon which to determine guilt or innocence. PA, you have earned the disgust, dislike and antipathy of a very large number of people here, in a way that will never recede. The fact that this makes you proud is disturbing, and not at all impressive. The fact that it include people who would otherwise tend to agree with you is worse.
And as for this:
That is thousands of light years from from right. The only outcome that would have avoided rioting was for a fairly handled grand jury to hand this off to a regularly jury to determine guilt or innocence, based upon evidence that all of the world could see. The DA probably did Wilson no favor, especially if he was innocent. The stigma would have been ameliorated to a much larger degree if a jury viewing public evidence, as opposed to a GJ viewing evidence the world never saw, found him innocent.
God, you are plague on the face of BBI. I used to think you were just annoying. I was wrong.
People don't like me? For what? Because I told them they were backing the wrong horse here and I was right? Because I said Brown was a thug and a piece of shit early on once I saw the video? Because I am not afraid to say I don't give a crap about Brown? None of you do. You are just pretending because if you are not, please name the other convicted felons that have tried to kill police officers that you feel sorry for.
I will wait, lets hear the names of those convicts. You are full of crap.
You continue to base your arguments on an incomplete set of facts--those leaked from the GJ. Pathetic and smug is a lousy combination.
manh george : 9:23 pm : link : reply
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting."
Exactly, if it's not making it past the GJ, it's not going to make it in a trial.
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
In a trial, there would have been a prosecutor who was all in representing the people. Who did that here?
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
Love to have that conversation. Saw a lot of the PD in action during my career in the FD. The good and the bad. 73' thu 10'. lots of stories as told through my eyes. Not a subject for BBI.
Others claiming that they are so sad a child was murdered...please. He would have been a convicted felon and no one would give a shit.
The suggestion that an indictment alone would have been sufficient to avoid the rioting is ridiculous.
In a trial, there would have been a prosecutor who was all in representing the people. Who did that here?
I think he knew he had a loser. He couldn't get a case past the GJ the other 4 times he tried. Would it have been better if he just came out and said there is now way I can get this past a GJ? He was in a no win situation IMHO. I give him kudos for doing his job when he knew he would be looked at as a clown by the national media. For those who say he should have asked for a special prosecutor, that's not what he was elected for. While we may not agree with him, he did the job. I at least respect that.
And then the apologists came out...saying "He was just stealing $50 worth of cigars...it was basically shoplifting"....but it wasn't and they got played. They played themselves. It tells a lot about people though...kind of scary.
It appears you are bent on bringing Officer Wilson to trial just to do it. If the DA thought he was guilty of something and there was a likelihood of a conviction he would have filed charges. But in this case, he either did not see a crime or he did not see a possibility of a conviction. In either case he would not waste time or money knowing he would lose.
Sadly, it appears a man lost his life by his own actions after allegedly having committed a felony (aggrevated battery and robbery). Michael Brown attacked a PO in his car and forensic evidence appears to prove he had not surrended, but decided to re-attack a smaller individual.
God, you are plague on the face of BBI. I used to think you were just annoying. I was wrong.
Oh please spare me your sanctimonious BS. There was no case. The DA knew this. The whole GJ thing was to placate the mob, which includes people like you and the media.
There should have just been an internal investigation and that's it.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
Quote:
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
It's always been my understanding that the GJ looks at the evidence and decides if it seems fact or fiction which then helps them decide if it's worth going to actual trial.
Quote:
In comment 12001494 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Wilsons statement:
I comprehend it fine. You don't seem to comprehend the FACT that his own dept stated unequivocally that he had received NO call's regarding the robbery, that a different officer was handling that robbery
Your getting testy over the fact that this is an inconsistency that McCullogh failed to address, or point out to the GJ and is catching shit for it.
You can sit there and assume all you want about the radio calls but this is what his own dept stated. In addition to that is the fact that Wilson claimed in his GJ testimony that "he "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery and called for backup", but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications.
these are two major inconsistencies with his testimony that McCullogh never addressed
Quote:
In comment 12001574 manh george said:
Quote:
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
It's always been my understanding that the GJ looks at the evidence and decides if it seems fact or fiction which then helps them decide if it's worth going to actual trial.
Deciding on fact or fiction is deciding guilt or innocence.
Quote:
In comment 12001526 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12001494 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Wilsons statement:
Quote:
Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street.
I comprehend it fine. You don't seem to comprehend the FACT that his own dept stated unequivocally that he had received NO call's regarding the robbery, that a different officer was handling that robbery
Your getting testy over the fact that this is an inconsistency that McCullogh failed to address, or point out to the GJ and is catching shit for it.
You can sit there and assume all you want about the radio calls but this is what his own dept stated. In addition to that is the fact that Wilson claimed in his GJ testimony that "he "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery and called for backup", but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications.
these are two major inconsistencies with his testimony that McCullogh never addressed
You realize that he can still hear calls that go over the radio to other officers...right?
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Quote:
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Do you have anything to back that up?
Because I'd say anyone of any race would have been shot in this scenario. Being black had nothing to do with him getting shot. Trying to take the officers gun, assaulting the officer, being very big and strong, and charging the officer at a full charge is what got him shot.
Quote:
In comment 12001545 TommyWiseau said:
Quote:
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Do you have anything to back that up?
Do you mean hard evidence? No, it's mostly one of those anecdotally-based statements, similar to confidently (and IMO justifiably) claiming as fact that riots would have been just as bad had the verdict been announced at 9:30 am.
Quote:
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
manhgeorge is correct, as far as I know. The problem is if the DA cannot get an indictment, using the lower burden of proof required, how would he get a conviction in a trial with the much Higher burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
I understand people being angry over what seems an unnecessary shooting. But the unnecessary part apparently was built on lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted by themselves or admissions that they really did not see the incident but repeated what they heard) and a deep seated mistrust on the police in similar cases.
Unfortunately this false accusation will now perpetuate the feeling that the police target certain minority groups, which is somewhat true in many areas of the country. But does burning down your home town and neighbors business help your cause? Any positive public sentiment and sympathy is lost to the majority of the country because of these actions.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
Quote:
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
If you commit more violent crimes, the greater the chance of getting killed. 13% of the population represents 37% of the inmate population. Also a disproportionate number.
The article doesn't say the circumstances of the shootings. We have a hard number 21 to 1, only. Were the alleged crimes identical? Did the suspects act the same during arrest?
It would seem that in order to show unequal treatment, the crimes would have to be categorized and compared.
Never the less, it does seem an inordinate number of shootings of African Americans
1. McCullough has/had no ties whatsoever to the Ferguson Police Department and does not know the officer involved.
2. Many prosecutors have law enforcement ties, that's why a lot of them run for/seek the office.
3. McCullough has gotten indictments/convictions of police officers in the past.
4. He has been the PA for a long time and no one before has challenged his bias or independence or integrity.
5. I hate to say it but as one poster noted, there were going to be riots anyway, whenever or however the verdict was announced.
6. Don't know it has been commented on here or if anyone saw it but shortly after the verdict was announced, Michael Brown's mother, who claimed to be calling for peace, went out and talked about herself and got the crowd all riled up. Next, his stepfather just started screaming "burn the ...bleep...down!"
7. Unfortunately for the City of Ferguson and all of the St. Louis region, nobody is talking to anyone about the real issues they should be talking about. Everyone is screaming and hurling insults at the other side. I hate to say there are sides but there obviously are.
8. The real problem lies with the Governor. Nixon has kissed goodbye any political future he might have had. They had 3 months to prepare for what happened Monday night and blew it. Not near enough National Guard and not deployed properly. Trying to negotiate "terms of engagement" with a headless crowd of protesters was a mistake. Sure there were peaceful protesters who want needed change but you couldn't pick them out from the crowd of looters and rioters.
In comment 12001574 manh george said:
Quote:
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
sphinx said:
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
section125 said:
manhgeorge is correct, as far as I know. The problem is if the DA cannot get an indictment, using the lower burden of proof required, how would he get a conviction in a trial with the much Higher burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
I understand people being angry over what seems an unnecessary shooting. But the unnecessary part apparently was built on lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted by themselves or admissions that they really did not see the incident but repeated what they heard) and a deep seated mistrust on the police in similar cases.
Unfortunately this false accusation will now perpetuate the feeling that the police target certain minority groups, which is somewhat true in many areas of the country. But does burning down your home town and neighbors business help your cause? Any positive public sentiment and sympathy is lost to the majority of the country because of these actions.
There are those who, from the very beginning, didn't think the prosecutor wanted an indictment. You say lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted ...), but some were steadfast, and that would seem to be probable cause, something for an adversarial trial to decide.
Quote:
Quote:
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
If you commit more violent crimes, the greater the chance of getting killed. 13% of the population represents 37% of the inmate population. Also a disproportionate number.
The article doesn't say the circumstances of the shootings. We have a hard number 21 to 1, only. Were the alleged crimes identical? Did the suspects act the same during arrest?
It would seem that in order to show unequal treatment, the crimes would have to be categorized and compared.
Never the less, it does seem an inordinate number of shootings of African Americans
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your statement. Do you think the whites who came in from out of town wearing Guy Fawkes masks give a rats ass about Michael Brown? Do you think the New Black Panthers care about anything other than he was black? Once the media found an opportunity to fill their 24 hour news cycle the only thing that would have prevented the riots was a 1st degree murder conviction. And even that verdict might have led to some celebratory vandalism. There probably would have been less participation from Ferguson residents, but some nasty shit definitely would have gone down.
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Or maybe, just maybe, black people get thrown in jail for crimes that other races (not just white people, but mostly) are able to get off with other terms and punishments.
Anyway what are you contending?
At "best", its a socioeconomic cycle where black communities stay impoverished through imprisonment/crime/lack of advancement.
At "worst", one could read your statement as saying that black people are just predisposed to committing more crime, which is ridiculous.
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
Quote:
In comment 12001827 section125 said:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
No, not at all. You really do not know me. Take a look at my wedding photos and you might retract your statement.
My comment was simply about ALL of the stats on the topic and not specifically about black people being 21 times more likely to be shot by cops. You might find additional stats that backup the reasons why that is occurring.
Another unarmed man shot - ( New Window )
1. McCullough has/had no ties whatsoever to the Ferguson Police Department and does not know the officer involved.
2. Many prosecutors have law enforcement ties, that's why a lot of them run for/seek the office.
3. McCullough has gotten indictments/convictions of police officers in the past.
4. He has been the PA for a long time and no one before has challenged his bias or independence or integrity.
5. I hate to say it but as one poster noted, there were going to be riots anyway, whenever or however the verdict was announced.
6. Don't know it has been commented on here or if anyone saw it but shortly after the verdict was announced, Michael Brown's mother, who claimed to be calling for peace, went out and talked about herself and got the crowd all riled up. Next, his stepfather just started screaming "burn the ...bleep...down!"
7. Unfortunately for the City of Ferguson and all of the St. Louis region, nobody is talking to anyone about the real issues they should be talking about. Everyone is screaming and hurling insults at the other side. I hate to say there are sides but there obviously are.
8. The real problem lies with the Governor. Nixon has kissed goodbye any political future he might have had. They had 3 months to prepare for what happened Monday night and blew it. Not near enough National Guard and not deployed properly. Trying to negotiate "terms of engagement" with a headless crowd of protesters was a mistake. Sure there were peaceful protesters who want needed change but you couldn't pick them out from the crowd of looters and rioters.
1)He's the county attorney for St Louis County. Fergurson lies within St Louis County, of course he has ties within that Dept.
2) True but i bet its a very small number that have anywhere close to these kind of ties:
""McCulloch's father was a police officer and was killed on the job in 1964 by an African-American man, when McCulloch was 12, McCulloch's spokesperson Ed Magee confirmed to CNN. In addition to his father, McCulloch's brother, an uncle and a cousin all served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked as a clerk at the department.""
3)What kind of cases against police has he prosecuted? Also what is the percentage that he prosecuted vs those he choose not to prosecute? The reason why i ask this is i have tried for 2 days to find this info out and i can't come up with anything detailing his record with regards to prosecuting police
4) This is completely wrong. He has had quite a few issues in the past. Starting with his publicity grab of going after Guns and Roses for a concert they held that people got injured at, he has had a few other head scratching moments that illustrate him badly.
He had an issue where he outed a local govt whistle blower:
The only hitch? McCulloch never told the grand jury what he was doing, and he later admitted that Signorino had never issued a threat or committed a crime. No matter: Signorino was forced to resign anyway.
And in 2001 he called a GJ over the shooting deaths of 2 suspects by undercover officers in which he actually got caught lying:
But a subsequent report by the Post-Dispatch revealed that McCulloch had lied. Only three of the 13 detectives who testified said the suspect's car had moved forward. Two of them were the shooters themselves; the third was "a detective who McCulloch later said he considered charging with perjury because his account was so at odds with the facts." According to the grand jury tapes, “four other detectives testified that they never saw the suspect’s car travel toward the officers.” A collision expert working for the Justice Department also determined that the suspect's car had remained in reverse throughout the incident. But McCulloch never brought any of this evidence before the grand jury — and, as a result, the jurors determined that the officers were right to fear for their safety. The case didn't go to trial.