In comment 12001949 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
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.
Great, so its easy for you to laugh dismiss not just one suggestive staff, but a number of suggestive stats regarding the treatment of minorities and blacks in particular within the legal system.
What's the point of finding additional stats if you're just gonna "laugh when you see them" anyway? What's so funny about those stats anyway?
There's obvious disparities in how the legal system treats blacks vs whites. Anyone who is trying to say this isn't true has their head in the sand.
One example:
After all, African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project)
Also, I love the old "I have black friends!" defense.
RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
Are more likely to commit the crimes. And they are more likely to be victims of the crimes. It was the Milwaukee Police chief talking about it yesterday.
He said something like 80% of homicides, and assaults are on black victims too. SO yes Blacks are committing more violent crime and are also vastly the victims of the same. It is the piece that no one wants to address claiming bias and racism.
There are those things, but the odds and returns for police in arrests have been stacked against blacks because of this. Blacks are committing more violent crime. People are conditioned by this as well. Is it prejudice? Sure. But is it not statistically sound too?
The problem has been poverty, drug laws and how felonys stay on peoples records in employment creating a cycle here. Also a poor family structure and cultural shift due to these same items. Its bad but complaining that it is racism is missing the real picture that no one seems to be trying to address.
In comment 12001949 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Also, I love the old "I have black friends!" defense.
No, what I really love is when you and others LOOK for racism in people when it does not exist. You simply do not know me...period. You still have not come up with an alternative explanation for those statistics. To you, there must be only one answer.
I am willing to admit that in some municipalities (ie maybe Ferguson) the cops are out of control and possibly helping to support those statistics. BUT again...those are nationwide stats, so what are you saying about the police?
Are more likely to commit the crimes. And they are more likely to be victims of the crimes. It was the Milwaukee Police chief talking about it yesterday.
He said something like 80% of homicides, and assaults are on black victims too. SO yes Blacks are committing more violent crime and are also vastly the victims of the same. It is the piece that no one wants to address claiming bias and racism.
There are those things, but the odds and returns for police in arrests have been stacked against blacks because of this. Blacks are committing more violent crime. People are conditioned by this as well. Is it prejudice? Sure. But is it not statistically sound too?
The problem has been poverty, drug laws and how felonys stay on peoples records in employment creating a cycle here. Also a poor family structure and cultural shift due to these same items. Its bad but complaining that it is racism is missing the real picture that no one seems to be trying to address.
Thank you PA Giant Fan. Now, be careful Sonic Youth thinks you may be racist too.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001967 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001934 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
If you're asking me to explain it beyond the statistic, I truly believe that black people are thrown in jail for longer times for the same crimes, receive less leniency from the law, and are in a de-facto segregation/imprisonment loop that hurts them socioeconomically and just restarts the cycle.
I think the justice system can be slanted against them.
It's been documents that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rates, and subsequently well documented that blacks make up a much higher % of the drug prison sentence population.
Whatever, I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But I find it shocking for people to imply in 2014 that there isn't a disparity in the legal system. People who cannot even acknowledge this are part of the problem in getting it fixed.
it was very clear that the original "witnesses" which made the rounds of the media (the "hands up" people) were not telling the truth and had their testimony impeached by forensic evidence.
This was a flimsy case all around. It's exactly why people should not form opinions until the real, solid evidence is disclosed.
Everyone has heard that saying, "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich?" Well this was less than a ham sandwich.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001980 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001964 Sonic Youth said:
No, what I really love is when you and others LOOK for racism in people when it does not exist. You simply do not know me...period. You still have not come up with an alternative explanation for those statistics. To you, there must be only one answer.
I am willing to admit that in some municipalities (ie maybe Ferguson) the cops are out of control and possibly helping to support those statistics. BUT again...those are nationwide stats, so what are you saying about the police?
Did you miss my FIRST post to you? Where I clearly stated by being imprisoned impoverished communities end up committing more crimes and ending up back in jail? that was my FIRST post to you. That's what I'd consider part of an explanation.
The other part is inequities of the judicial system and law enforcement system, which is slanted against blacks, both anecdotally and statistically.
But yeah, this isn't about you being racist, it's about you ignoring the truth.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001967 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001934 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
If you're asking me to explain it beyond the statistic, I truly believe that black people are thrown in jail for longer times for the same crimes, receive less leniency from the law, and are in a de-facto segregation/imprisonment loop that hurts them socioeconomically and just restarts the cycle.
I think the justice system can be slanted against them.
It's been documents that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rates, and subsequently well documented that blacks make up a much higher % of the drug prison sentence population.
Whatever, I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But I find it shocking for people to imply in 2014 that there isn't a disparity in the legal system. People who cannot even acknowledge this are part of the problem in getting it fixed.
Maybe {hopefully} that's not what you meant..
Thank you for your explanation. Yes, there may be truth to the fact that african americans may get put away for the same crime vs white americans. It could also be due to many factors including 1. lack of a quality defense attorney 2. prior offenses 3. etc
In the end, this all boils down to this... Don't commit the crime. Yes, socioeconomic issues do exist and are a factor. BUT, they are part of the explanation and should not be used as an excuse (reason to say it is ok to commit the crime).
I'm not making a comparison at all..My point is that, this happened and that at no point is the media giving it any attention, no riots have occured or anything..
When one wonders why there is a animosity between some Blacks and police, this is one thing to look at..
sorry I heard in on CNN. Chris Cuomo was talking to Debbie Feyerick
Quote:
DEBORAH FEYERICK: ...[T]he prosecutor was very clear. It's 12 men and women from the community [on the grand jury]. So, they had just as much interest in seeing that justice be served. But it's unethical for a prosecutor to bring a case if he believes he cannot get a conviction.
What's interesting is that so many of the protesters and demonstrators went after not only the police officers, but they went after community businesses themselves. And one captain basically said – you know, this is not the way you create jobs by destroying the dreams of small business owners. There's a lot of conflict there from all sides.
CUOMO: I think that assumes a deliberateness that isn't in place once you're blinded with rage. I think – you know, violence doesn't have a conscience – it's often been said. And in a community like this, I think you destroy what you see. It's wrong. It's illegal. It stands in stark contrast to what this outrage is supposed to be about – which was a failure of justice. You know, creating more injustice does not make that any better.
But, you know – look, the grand jury itself is a dinosaur, okay? There is no need for one. A prosecutor can have an open hearing. A prosecutor can make its own process. He or she can just bring charges. In fact, the prosecutor could still bring charges even after the grand jury.
One of the major complaints from sober minds here in Ferguson was that – listen, if this prosecutor wanted to bring a case, he would just have brought it himself – that this was punting. You keep hearing the term 'punting' – to put this on a grand jury.
Look, whatever the feelings are about the process, the process is now over, and what this community have to – has to deal with, in a very real and ongoing way, will be how it deals with the outcome of this situation.
FEYERICK: Yeah – no question. You said five – you said the grand jury was unanimous – and Darren Wilson was facing five possible charges – and they decided not to indict him on any of them. Thanks, Chris.
been able to get through, if Michael Brown were white, or Officer Wilson black, I doubt this would even get presented to a grand jury in the first place.
the GJ did the right thing. All the evidence pointed to it. Isn't that the most important thing? Or is this social justice argument more important?
Mixing 2 different issues together on this thread. A very specific incident and a bigger social issue. Some of us can be on different sides on the specific and individual. Lazy to insinuate racism because of your comments on the specific incident.
the GJ did the right thing. All the evidence pointed to it. Isn't that the most important thing? Or is this social justice argument more important?
When you say, All the evidence, it's simply not true. As the prosecutor said, "THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY." There was varying testimony, ergo probable cause.
was not and has not been disclosed...McCulloch was asked (twice) and specifically said he wasn't going to release it...anything else is pure speculation and BS...
Quote:
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.
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
what has gotten into some of you people. The GJ viewed the evidence, saw the testimony, decided who was truthful and who was not and made a judgment.
That is the beauty of this. They got to see everything. Not just the bits and pieces that made its way into the media.
This "social justice" argument is not a strong one. People seem to be insinuating there is nothing wrong with going forward with an indictment when the evidence suggests that the officer was being truthful.
The problem people are having is that the first "witnesses" the media trotted out to the public were all lying. Their testimony was impeached in the GJ.
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.
I would appreciate next time that you remove me from the quote, when what you are quoting is not what I said.
People seem to be insinuating there is nothing wrong with going forward with an indictment when the evidence suggests that the officer was being truthful.
That's a large part of the problem, IMO. Wilson being allowed to testify for 4 hours without a legitimate cross examination.
What McCulloch did with the way he handled this was Â
Was nothing more then leaving Wilson out to dry and swinging in the wind. This GJ was all about McCulloch covering his own ass and no regard to how this would leave Wilson.
Here you have a situation where a part of the population feels it has been treated unlawfully for years. Its a very delicate situation that if handled properly it would go a long way towards soothing tensions. Instead this guy decides to do a questionable GJ proceeding despite the fact that you have a petition with over 70K signatures, the NAACP, the ACLU on it asking you to be recuse yourself or call a special prosecutor to convene the GJ. Instead this guy goes forward with it, handles it in a way very different from any other GJ he has had in the past, and you end up with a ton of questions and doubt instead of concrete answers. Meanwhile you have a cop whose whole life is hanging in the balance. A legitimately handled GJ would have gone a long way towards him getting through this situation and possibly not having the level of frustration we see now.
This does not mean the GJ is wrong, it very well could be correct that this was a 100% legit shooting, but because there has been so much doubt about McCulloch's impartiality it did nothing to help Wilson in the long ruin, and may have actually rallied more people to the other side
Quote:
In comment 12001786 section125 said:
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
You're forgetting this wasn't a trial. Being skeptical was not the GJ's purpose. That would be the purpose of an adversarial trial. That there was forthright testimony on both "sides" indicates the need for a trial.
the testimony from the people who said he was running away, shot in the back and then came back with his hands up in the air. Those witnesses. They were not telling the truth.
Other witnesses, not interviewed by the media, had a different story and their story fit the forensic evidence ie was corroborated.
the testimony from the people who said he was running away, shot in the back and then came back with his hands up in the air. Those witnesses. They were not telling the truth.
Other witnesses, not interviewed by the media, had a different story and their story fit the forensic evidence ie was corroborated.
I repeat, from the mouth of the prosecutor ...
"THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY."
Note, "WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE". There is a huge difference between stumbling and full charge. That is the crux of the matter.
I'm not making a comparison at all..My point is that, this happened and that at no point is the media giving it any attention, no riots have occured or anything..
When one wonders why there is a animosity between some Blacks and police, this is one thing to look at..
The NATIONAL media is giving it little attention, but that is not the case in the NYC area. It's still getting a lot of attention in both print and on TV. And Sharpton has been on the scene, which is a bad omen. I think everyone is waiting to see what the NYPD and the DA do. There is nearly unanimous agreement that a) This was not a justified shooting but that b) There was no premeditation or criminal intent. Instead, a horrible tragedy.
cops should have cameras on them. This would of all been avoided if they had video. I don't want to hear about cost either.Look how much Ferguson is paying all those cops overtime for having to deal with the protesters.
Quote:
In comment 12001786 section125 said:
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
You're forgetting this wasn't a trial. Being skeptical was not the GJ's purpose. That would be the purpose of an adversarial trial. That there was forthright testimony on both "sides" indicates the need for a trial.
No I'm not forgetting it was a GJ. What you are forgetting is that if GJ does not find enough evidence of a crime, they don't indict. If they can't get an indictment, there isn't enough to convict. Why go to step B if you can't get through step A?
But I do understand what you are saying. I just do not agree that they should have an indictment because witnesses disagree when physical evidence supports one set of witnesses only. I will also admit I did not see the evidence, just what I read.
I understand al that. I been reading about this since it happened..This story has gotten my atention rather than the brown story..
But the point i am trying to make is that, like i said before, people are wondering why there is a distrust between minority neighborhoods and police, example number one. Or the many Blacks that have been freed this year because of that one cop who tainted hundreds of cases and other cases that Blacks were charged without reliable evidence..
This brown case is not just some issue win a vacuum and it's easy for others outside these neighborhoods to just wipe it awawy with "because of drugs, single parenting and violence"..This issue goes further back where people don't want to go to find it's roots..
but you made my point exactly in the quote you provided
Quote:
THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY.
I do believe that was McCollough being a bit snarky!
Caps because I did a copy and paste from the transcript provided by CSPAN. I was too lazy to retype.
"Varying descriptions" does not, in itself, indicate 'stumbling' or 'charging'. Was Wilson being attacked or was Brown falling down because of the gun shots that already hit him?
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.
Great, so its easy for you to laugh dismiss not just one suggestive staff, but a number of suggestive stats regarding the treatment of minorities and blacks in particular within the legal system.
What's the point of finding additional stats if you're just gonna "laugh when you see them" anyway? What's so funny about those stats anyway?
There's obvious disparities in how the legal system treats blacks vs whites. Anyone who is trying to say this isn't true has their head in the sand.
One example:
After all, African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project)
Also, I love the old "I have black friends!" defense.
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
He said something like 80% of homicides, and assaults are on black victims too. SO yes Blacks are committing more violent crime and are also vastly the victims of the same. It is the piece that no one wants to address claiming bias and racism.
There are those things, but the odds and returns for police in arrests have been stacked against blacks because of this. Blacks are committing more violent crime. People are conditioned by this as well. Is it prejudice? Sure. But is it not statistically sound too?
The problem has been poverty, drug laws and how felonys stay on peoples records in employment creating a cycle here. Also a poor family structure and cultural shift due to these same items. Its bad but complaining that it is racism is missing the real picture that no one seems to be trying to address.
Quote:
Also, I love the old "I have black friends!" defense.
No, what I really love is when you and others LOOK for racism in people when it does not exist. You simply do not know me...period. You still have not come up with an alternative explanation for those statistics. To you, there must be only one answer.
I am willing to admit that in some municipalities (ie maybe Ferguson) the cops are out of control and possibly helping to support those statistics. BUT again...those are nationwide stats, so what are you saying about the police?
He said something like 80% of homicides, and assaults are on black victims too. SO yes Blacks are committing more violent crime and are also vastly the victims of the same. It is the piece that no one wants to address claiming bias and racism.
There are those things, but the odds and returns for police in arrests have been stacked against blacks because of this. Blacks are committing more violent crime. People are conditioned by this as well. Is it prejudice? Sure. But is it not statistically sound too?
The problem has been poverty, drug laws and how felonys stay on peoples records in employment creating a cycle here. Also a poor family structure and cultural shift due to these same items. Its bad but complaining that it is racism is missing the real picture that no one seems to be trying to address.
Thank you PA Giant Fan. Now, be careful Sonic Youth thinks you may be racist too.
Quote:
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
If you're asking me to explain it beyond the statistic, I truly believe that black people are thrown in jail for longer times for the same crimes, receive less leniency from the law, and are in a de-facto segregation/imprisonment loop that hurts them socioeconomically and just restarts the cycle.
I think the justice system can be slanted against them.
It's been documents that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rates, and subsequently well documented that blacks make up a much higher % of the drug prison sentence population.
Whatever, I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But I find it shocking for people to imply in 2014 that there isn't a disparity in the legal system. People who cannot even acknowledge this are part of the problem in getting it fixed.
Maybe {hopefully} that's not what you meant..
This was a flimsy case all around. It's exactly why people should not form opinions until the real, solid evidence is disclosed.
Everyone has heard that saying, "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich?" Well this was less than a ham sandwich.
No, what I really love is when you and others LOOK for racism in people when it does not exist. You simply do not know me...period. You still have not come up with an alternative explanation for those statistics. To you, there must be only one answer.
I am willing to admit that in some municipalities (ie maybe Ferguson) the cops are out of control and possibly helping to support those statistics. BUT again...those are nationwide stats, so what are you saying about the police?
Did you miss my FIRST post to you? Where I clearly stated by being imprisoned impoverished communities end up committing more crimes and ending up back in jail? that was my FIRST post to you. That's what I'd consider part of an explanation.
The other part is inequities of the judicial system and law enforcement system, which is slanted against blacks, both anecdotally and statistically.
But yeah, this isn't about you being racist, it's about you ignoring the truth.
Quote:
In comment 12001934 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
If you're asking me to explain it beyond the statistic, I truly believe that black people are thrown in jail for longer times for the same crimes, receive less leniency from the law, and are in a de-facto segregation/imprisonment loop that hurts them socioeconomically and just restarts the cycle.
I think the justice system can be slanted against them.
It's been documents that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rates, and subsequently well documented that blacks make up a much higher % of the drug prison sentence population.
Whatever, I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But I find it shocking for people to imply in 2014 that there isn't a disparity in the legal system. People who cannot even acknowledge this are part of the problem in getting it fixed.
Maybe {hopefully} that's not what you meant..
Thank you for your explanation. Yes, there may be truth to the fact that african americans may get put away for the same crime vs white americans. It could also be due to many factors including 1. lack of a quality defense attorney 2. prior offenses 3. etc
In the end, this all boils down to this... Don't commit the crime. Yes, socioeconomic issues do exist and are a factor. BUT, they are part of the explanation and should not be used as an excuse (reason to say it is ok to commit the crime).
TOTALLY different circumstances, as is made clear in the article. You have a rookie policeman in tears, at the scene, admitting the horrible mistake.
When one wonders why there is a animosity between some Blacks and police, this is one thing to look at..
I didn't see that. Link?
Quote:
Another unarmed man is shot. Difference is no media coverage, no riots, no fanning the flames... Another unarmed man shot - ( New Window )
TOTALLY different circumstances, as is made clear in the article. You have a rookie policeman in tears, at the scene, admitting the horrible mistake.
Plus the deceased didn't lay out in the middle of the street for 4+ hours.
What's interesting is that so many of the protesters and demonstrators went after not only the police officers, but they went after community businesses themselves. And one captain basically said – you know, this is not the way you create jobs by destroying the dreams of small business owners. There's a lot of conflict there from all sides.
CUOMO: I think that assumes a deliberateness that isn't in place once you're blinded with rage. I think – you know, violence doesn't have a conscience – it's often been said. And in a community like this, I think you destroy what you see. It's wrong. It's illegal. It stands in stark contrast to what this outrage is supposed to be about – which was a failure of justice. You know, creating more injustice does not make that any better.
But, you know – look, the grand jury itself is a dinosaur, okay? There is no need for one. A prosecutor can have an open hearing. A prosecutor can make its own process. He or she can just bring charges. In fact, the prosecutor could still bring charges even after the grand jury.
One of the major complaints from sober minds here in Ferguson was that – listen, if this prosecutor wanted to bring a case, he would just have brought it himself – that this was punting. You keep hearing the term 'punting' – to put this on a grand jury.
Look, whatever the feelings are about the process, the process is now over, and what this community have to – has to deal with, in a very real and ongoing way, will be how it deals with the outcome of this situation.
FEYERICK: Yeah – no question. You said five – you said the grand jury was unanimous – and Darren Wilson was facing five possible charges – and they decided not to indict him on any of them. Thanks, Chris.
When you say, All the evidence, it's simply not true. As the prosecutor said, "THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY." There was varying testimony, ergo probable cause.
Based on his actions in the Robbery and walking down the middle of the street he was either dusted or high.
Based on his actions in the Robbery and walking down the middle of the street he was either dusted or high.
Are you referring to a drug test? They found some weed in his system, that's it, IIRC.
Quote:
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.
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
That is the beauty of this. They got to see everything. Not just the bits and pieces that made its way into the media.
This "social justice" argument is not a strong one. People seem to be insinuating there is nothing wrong with going forward with an indictment when the evidence suggests that the officer was being truthful.
The problem people are having is that the first "witnesses" the media trotted out to the public were all lying. Their testimony was impeached in the GJ.
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.
I would appreciate next time that you remove me from the quote, when what you are quoting is not what I said.
Thanks
That's a large part of the problem, IMO. Wilson being allowed to testify for 4 hours without a legitimate cross examination.
Here you have a situation where a part of the population feels it has been treated unlawfully for years. Its a very delicate situation that if handled properly it would go a long way towards soothing tensions. Instead this guy decides to do a questionable GJ proceeding despite the fact that you have a petition with over 70K signatures, the NAACP, the ACLU on it asking you to be recuse yourself or call a special prosecutor to convene the GJ. Instead this guy goes forward with it, handles it in a way very different from any other GJ he has had in the past, and you end up with a ton of questions and doubt instead of concrete answers. Meanwhile you have a cop whose whole life is hanging in the balance. A legitimately handled GJ would have gone a long way towards him getting through this situation and possibly not having the level of frustration we see now.
This does not mean the GJ is wrong, it very well could be correct that this was a 100% legit shooting, but because there has been so much doubt about McCulloch's impartiality it did nothing to help Wilson in the long ruin, and may have actually rallied more people to the other side
Quote:
In comment 12001786 section125 said:
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
You're forgetting this wasn't a trial. Being skeptical was not the GJ's purpose. That would be the purpose of an adversarial trial. That there was forthright testimony on both "sides" indicates the need for a trial.
You are *assuming* ALL testimony as to Brown's movements when shot were impeached.
Hey they can say whatever they want and people will believe them. Facts be damned!
His choice.
Other witnesses, not interviewed by the media, had a different story and their story fit the forensic evidence ie was corroborated.
Other witnesses, not interviewed by the media, had a different story and their story fit the forensic evidence ie was corroborated.
I repeat, from the mouth of the prosecutor ...
"THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY."
Note, "WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE". There is a huge difference between stumbling and full charge. That is the crux of the matter.
When one wonders why there is a animosity between some Blacks and police, this is one thing to look at..
The NATIONAL media is giving it little attention, but that is not the case in the NYC area. It's still getting a lot of attention in both print and on TV. And Sharpton has been on the scene, which is a bad omen. I think everyone is waiting to see what the NYPD and the DA do. There is nearly unanimous agreement that a) This was not a justified shooting but that b) There was no premeditation or criminal intent. Instead, a horrible tragedy.
Quote:
Quote:
In comment 12001786 section125 said:
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
You're forgetting this wasn't a trial. Being skeptical was not the GJ's purpose. That would be the purpose of an adversarial trial. That there was forthright testimony on both "sides" indicates the need for a trial.
No I'm not forgetting it was a GJ. What you are forgetting is that if GJ does not find enough evidence of a crime, they don't indict. If they can't get an indictment, there isn't enough to convict. Why go to step B if you can't get through step A?
But I do understand what you are saying. I just do not agree that they should have an indictment because witnesses disagree when physical evidence supports one set of witnesses only. I will also admit I did not see the evidence, just what I read.
But the point i am trying to make is that, like i said before, people are wondering why there is a distrust between minority neighborhoods and police, example number one. Or the many Blacks that have been freed this year because of that one cop who tainted hundreds of cases and other cases that Blacks were charged without reliable evidence..
This brown case is not just some issue win a vacuum and it's easy for others outside these neighborhoods to just wipe it awawy with "because of drugs, single parenting and violence"..This issue goes further back where people don't want to go to find it's roots..
I do believe that was McCollough being a bit snarky!
Quote:
would the cop still testify?
His choice.
All of his testimony in the GJ proceedings could be entered as evidence.
So Wilson speaking to the GJ without having a lawyer present could have been damaging to him in that regard.
Quote:
THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY.
I do believe that was McCollough being a bit snarky!
Caps because I did a copy and paste from the transcript provided by CSPAN. I was too lazy to retype.
"Varying descriptions" does not, in itself, indicate 'stumbling' or 'charging'. Was Wilson being attacked or was Brown falling down because of the gun shots that already hit him?