If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No. They are not exactly different. they are connected. Obviously the protesters are ignoring Browns behavior before, during the strongarm robbery. THIS is part of the credibility problem with those protesting. Are they endorsing his behavior? Seems so. They live in a community that elected their prosecutor. Perhaps they would be better served in being peaceful, articulate and sending their best (Lawyers, non-enciting representatives from the black community, etc) and started a dialog. Demand the media cover all sides of the discussions. The temper tantrums do nothing to help the black community show it is willing to participate peacefully. The violence is what whites distrust. They have a feeling that talk will do nothing, and riots will continue. Ignoring the history of riots during the 60's doesn't help.
To put it bluntly, anyone who tries to elevate civilian on civilian murders as being equal to events where police officers use excessive force is transparently trying to change the subject.
Indeed. Criminals don't swear an oath to serve and protect the public. Police officers do. Criminals aren't agents of the state. Police officers are. It is blatantly transparent. And anyone who insists with this false equivalency especially when it is repeatedly explained to them is either being downright disingenuous or basic logic and common sense simply eludes them.
Obviously the protesters are ignoring Browns behavior before, during the strongarm robbery. THIS is part of the credibility problem with those protesting.
Your statement boils down to you shouldn't protest excessive force if the person was a criminal. Rights don't work that way.
Originally Posted by BadKosh
Ignoring the history of riots during the 60's doesn't help.
We remember the social unrest of the 60s for a reason.
No. They are not exactly different. they are connected. Obviously the protesters are ignoring Browns behavior before, during the strongarm robbery. THIS is part of the credibility problem with those protesting. Are they endorsing his behavior? Seems so.
Well that's what the those on the right love to tell themselves in their echo chamber. The reality is that Wilson's own police chief was asked REPEATEDLY if Wilson knew about the robbery and for a WEEK he said no. Then after the Ferguson PD forced the market owner to turn over the security footage for a crime he never even reported ... then leaked it ... at that point they began to construct a narrative that Wilson somehow recognized them as suspects. Why? Because they know all too well that there are those who are already inclined to take a police officer's word for it when an unarmed black man gets killed right out of the gate ... and if you give them ANY EXCUSE (i.e. he just committed a crime that had NOTHING to do with what happened on the street) they are even more likely.
But moreover, the bottom line is that Brown walking out of that store with a handful of loose cigarillos (not a $50 box that the police report lied about) is completely irrelevant. If Wilson did confront Brown about it and he had responded by slapping Wilson across his face with his dick ... it would have STILL been irrelevant! What matters is that after an initial struggle Brown was shot and ran over 150 feet away. He appeared to have been shot again at which point he stopped and attempted to surrender to Wilson. He should have ARRESTED Brown at that point. Because that's what a police officer is supposed to do. Instead he EXECUTED him because he could.
The bottom line is that we don't buy Wilson's story. Why? Because walking out of a store without paying for a handful of cigarillos that cost approximately $0.33/each is one thing. Even pushing a clerk away who grabbed you is one thing. Attacking an armed police officer unprovoked without a weapon and wearing flip fops is something else entirely. And charging a police officer who ALREADY SHOT YOU and is STILL SHOOTING at you is irrationally suicidal anyway you slice it. That would be a hard story to sell to the protestors in and of itself. Trying to sell it when there are multiple eyewitnesses who saw Wilson shoot Brown in cold blood and came forward PUBLICLY is nearly impossible. And that is NOT going to change based upon the testimony of a single SECRET witness who supported Wilson's story before the grand jury.
Brown being a crook and a thug (grabs the cigars then shoves the manager and stares him down) is absolutely relevant, it frames the entire altercation that led to his death. He was a violent, dangerous person accustomed to bullying people for whatever he wanted. Ignoring that reality makes his supporters even less credible, because anyone with a shred of common sense can see that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Brown being a crook and a thug (grabs the cigars then shoves the manager and stares him down) is absolutely relevant, it frames the entire altercation that led to his death.
Again it frames nothing. Because Ferguson and STL County PD repeatedly denied Wilson knew anything about Brown being involved with that until after the fact. This after his initial statement to STL County PD the day of or after the shooting where Wilson himself doesn't give any indication of this. But in his statement to the grand jury he claims he put the SUV in reverse because he made the connection. A discrepancy STL County Prosecutor's office made no attempt to question.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
He was a violent, dangerous person accustomed to bullying people for whatever he wanted. Ignoring that reality makes his supporters even less credible, because anyone with a shred of common sense can see that.
First all all ... you don't know anything whatsoever about Mike Brown to make the statement that he was "accustomed to bullying people". Let's call that for what it is. A teenager walks out with a handful of cigarillos that were worth several dollars tops ... and then "shoves the manager" who grabbed him first. And yes ... it's not a good look. He should have been ARRESTED ... not EXECUTED for it. But you have no basis whatsoever to pass judgment on what he was or was not "accustomed to". You have evidence of a single incident of bad behavior on Brown's part and you immediately paint his entire existence with the broad brush of "thug". You have no history you can point to to justify such a statement. So quite frankly .... you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
He was a violent, dangerous person accustomed to bullying people for whatever he wanted.
Who in their right mind bullies cops?
That's where I'm at right now. I'd be much more comfortable taking Wilson's account if they unearthed this guy being bipolar of a psychopath or something. Hell, I'd settle for tough-guy gang ties at this point.
To think that Brown is going to WALK ... not run home after taking a handful of cigarillos. Calm as a cucumber after not one but TWO cops pass him on W. Florissant Ave. But then when he encounters Wilson on Canfield Dr. he's going to try to BULLY an armed police officer? Instead of just continuing to "be cool" in hopes that the market owner didn't call the cops. Which he didn't! It's laughable on its face. Get the f*ck out of here with that nonsense!
As I've said before, all too often the cop's story when they shoot and kill an unarmed black male is predicated upon utter irrationality on the part of the victim. This one is no exception.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
That's where I'm at right now. I'd be much more comfortable taking Wilson's account if they unearthed this guy being bipolar of a psychopath or something. Hell, I'd settle for tough-guy gang ties at this point.
Indeed. I mean throw the people a bone or something.
So the same guy that is bending over backwards to believe the police story when a unarmed black male is killed by white cop ... is skeptical of the police story when they say that a white guy being killed by black criminals was not racially motivated. Ok.
Again it frames nothing. Because Ferguson and STL County PD repeatedly denied Wilson knew anything about Brown being involved with that until after the fact. This after his initial statement to STL County PD the day of or after the shooting where Wilson himself doesn't give any indication of this. But in his statement to the grand jury he claims he put the SUV in reverse because he made the connection. A discrepancy STL County Prosecutor's office made no attempt to question.
Ever heard of live by the sword, die by the sword? It means that if you live a violent, confrontational life, you'll meet a violent end. His death was a consequence of the way he chose to live his life, that sums it all up. He's another dead thug, and another statistic for a community that holds no value in its young, until they're on a slab and can become yet another victim of "the Man" to use as a rallying point.
First all all ... you don't know anything whatsoever about Mike Brown to make the statement that he was "accustomed to bullying people". Let's call that for what it is. A teenager walks out with a handful of cigarillos that were worth several dollars tops ... and then "shoves the manager" who grabbed him first. And yes ... it's not a good look. He should have been ARRESTED ... not EXECUTED for it. But you have no basis whatsoever to pass judgment on what he was or was not "accustomed to". You have evidence of a single incident of bad behavior on Brown's part and you immediately paint his entire existence with the broad brush of "thug". You have no history you can point to to justify such a statement. So quite frankly .... you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
People like that don't suddenly come upon it, he didn't just suddenly decide, "you know what, I'm going to get some smokes and not pay for them", then after being confronted about it think, "**** this guy, I'm entitled to them, I'll just scare the shit out of him". Of course the little shop manager tried to do something, he's probably sick of all the Mike Browns going in and robbing him blind. It's a learned behavior, he used his size and developed an equally intimidating attitude to take what he wanted. That, "I'm a big, bad man" attitude killed him, not the bullets from Wilson's gun, unless he changed his ways (lamentably unlikely) he was destined to be a chalk outline, like too many others like him.
There's no hope for you, you don't want to see the reality of the situation and I've long since stopped caring, but hopefully someone else will finally understand how dangerous your ignorant, nonsensical arguments are and realize that in its current form, there's no future for the urban black community, at least not one that isn't bleak and bloody. This is going to take a unified effort including all Americans to change that course, but first blacks themselves need to realize how screwed up the situation is in the first place, and stop giving birth to more future chalk outlines.
(
Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Dec 2, 2014 at 01:32 AM.
)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
So the same guy that is bending over backwards to believe the police story when a unarmed black male is killed by white cop ... is skeptical of the police story when they say that a white guy being killed by black criminals was not racially motivated. Ok.
OAW
With the climate in area right now, The last thing they need is the Bosnians Balkanizing Missouri, or maybe thats what is wanted. (it sound like the scary man from Chicago wants it)
This was recorded two days before the GJ decision was announced.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Dec 2, 2014 at 01:24 AM.
)
Farrakhan didn't even know where he was, he was there to just stir the crap and make more money off fear donations, to keep the cycle going. His doctrine and ideology has killed more blacks than all the white supremacists in the world, combined.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
And that IDIOT Rangle is talking reparations now. This smells of a staged event more and more. Its like the Obama admin didn't get the results they wanted when they were adding in their racist narrative into the Zimmerman case, so tjey are trying this again with Brown.
It is sad that the AA community seems to think laws are a joke. Do they even know right from wrong? When OJ got off, you didn't see white folks tearing up their communities, but AA's seem to do this for almost any reason these days. I guess self restraint is too difficult?
As I've said before, all too often the cop's story when they shoot and kill an unarmed black male is predicated upon utter irrationality on the part of the victim. This one is no exception. :hmm
OAW
Yeah, and when questioned about criminal activity ALL BLACKS TELL THE TRUTH!
When OJ got off, you didn't see white folks tearing up their communities, but AA's seem to do this for almost any reason these days. I guess self restraint is too difficult?
Even with video evidence, there was a HUNG JURY for the ones that did not plead out.
A bit more footage with "Football" "Twan" and "Kiki"
These people cared about as much about the King verdict as the rioters in Ferguson did for the GJ decision. They were looking for a excuse to loot. Moral relativism at it finest.
People like that don't suddenly come upon it, he didn't just suddenly decide, "you know what, I'm going to get some smokes and not pay for them", then after being confronted about it think, "**** this guy, I'm entitled to them, I'll just scare the shit out of him".
So I suppose by this logic all those white kids "didn't just suddenly decide" to shoot up the school huh? And all their family and friends who described it as being completely out of character were just delusional too right?
A synopsis for the TL/DR crowd of Darren Wilson's ever changing story that some seem inclined to ignore ....
- Wilson told the first officer to question him on the death that he did not know about a radio call about two teenagers being wanted for robbery
- But he later told St Louis detectives that he had matched Michael Brown to the description of wanted suspects
- He also did not initially reveal that he backed up his car towards Michael Brown and his friend, which he said subsequently
- Grand jury evidence from his squad supervisor who was first to ask him about shooting discloses discrepancy
- Wilson has now resigned from force but controversy over death of Brown still rages
And the detailed account ...
Darren Wilson changed his story following the immediate aftermath of the fatal shooting of unarmed black teen Michael Brown to include events about which he initially denied all knowledge.
Evidence presented to the grand jury and reviewed by MailOnline has revealed a crucial difference between the officer's first account of events given to his squad supervisor on the scene and his second statement to St Louis County detectives investigating the shooting.
In Wilson's now very public account of his encounter with Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson on August 9 he has claimed that he asked Brown and Wilson to move to the sidewalk rather than walk in the street.
When they walked on, Wilson has repeatedly stated, he realized they matched the description of two suspects wanted in connection with the robbery of nearby Ferguson Market. A youth matching Brown's description had stolen a box of Swishers cigarillos.
It was this realization, he stated, that caused him to reverse his vehicle and sparked the car-side confrontation that left Brown dead on the street with six bullets in his body.
But the sworn testimony of Wilson's squad supervisor directly contradicts this account.
Wilson's supervisor was the first officer to speak with the 28-year-old cop following the shooting. The men spoke before St Louis County Police had even been notified of the incident and before the medical examiner or investigating officers had arrived on the scene.
At that time, the supervisor said:'He [Wilson] did not know anything about the stealing call.'
When pressed by the attorney questioning him, the officer reiterated that Wilson, 'did not know anything'.
Asked, 'He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at Ferguson Market?'
The officer responded, 'Correct.'
Nor did he make any mention of reversing his police car back towards the youths.
In fact the squad supervisor stated that, in several subsequent conversations, Wilson said 'he did not have that call.'
Yet two hours after speaking to his supervisor, 28-year-old Wilson gave a very different account to the St Louis County Police detective assigned to conduct a cursory interview with the cop.
In his testimony the St Louis detective, whose name has been redacted in the transcripts that are among the thousands of pages of grand jury evidence made publicly available by Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, recalled: 'He tells me he was leaving an unrelated sick case call and was driving, it would be west on Canfield Road.
'As he's driving he hears a call that was not assigned to him for a stealing in progress at 9101 West Florissant Avenue and he provides us with that address and the nature of the call was a stealing.
'He said that the call comments indicated the suspect description was a black male wearing a black shirt and brown shorts, and that an additional call comment indicated that taken during the stealing were Cigarillos.'
It is a marked discrepancy from Wilson's admission minutes after the shooting that he had no knowledge of that incident. In the time between that denial and this detailed recollection of the suspect's description and goods stolen, Wilson had driven himself back to Ferguson Police Department Headquarters on the city's Main Street.
He had washed his hands clean of any blood and he had been permitted to bag up his own gun as evidence - acts entirely contrary to St Louis County procedure.
And in the course of an hour, he had spent time in the company of the Lieutenant Colonel, his Chief of Police Thomas Jackson, as well as an attorney from the Fraternity of Police Officers.
Wilson was sitting with all three when the St Louis County detective arrived to interview him.
Before he could, Wilson's Lieutenant Colonel made the decision to take the officer to hospital for treatment.
Medical records show that what Wilson described as a struggle for his life left scant physical injury.
Wilson was diagnosed with bruising and given medication described by his treating physician as 'essentially prescription strength Aleve.'
It is now also known that the decision to X-ray Wilson was not a clinical one made by his medic but in response to the Chief of Police's direct request.
It was Chief Thomas who released CCTV footage of the Ferguson Market robbery showing Brown swiping the cigarillos and squaring up to a clearly intimidated store keeper. His actions drew harsh criticism from those who saw it as an attempt to smear Brown and shift focus from Wilson.
Chief Thomas's claim that he released the tapes in response to media requests was subsequently shown to be untrue.
In his interview with the St Louis County detective Wilson recalled Brown handing something to Dorian Johnson and saying something like, 'Here take these.' But he said he could not see what was handed.
By the time officer Wilson gave his account to the FBI agent assigned to interview him on 28 August his power of recall had grown ever more impressive.
The Federal agent told the Grand Jury that Wilson stated, 'He heard over the radio a call for a stealing in progress…He heard it was at a market, he didn't hear which one and he heard a description over the radio saying the subjects were walking towards the QuikTrip, stole Cigarillos and one subject was wearing a black shirt.
'Officer Wilson's attention was then drawn to Michael Brown and he noticed that Michael Brown's hands were full of Cigarillos. He looks in his rear view mirror and also saw that Dorian was wearing a black T-shirt.'
Crucially, the FBI agent continued, 'Thinking back on the call, Michael Brown was wearing a gray t-shirt and the call was they stole Cigarillos and one was wearing a black shirt.
'So kind of putting tow and two together or thinking that these might be the two guys, he puts the car in to reverse.'
Wilson got out of the car to give chase following the struggle for his gun that saw the first shot fired, because, the agent stated, 'Michael Brown was a fleeing felon. And he was just doing his job, those were his words.'
None of the interviews - not the first account given to his Squad Supervisor, or the cursory interview conducted within hours of the shooting by the St Louis detective or the FBI's own interrogation - were recorded.
Asked why he had not recorded nor noted down Wilson's vital first account, his squad supervisor said, 'Number one, I did not have a recorder. Number two, I didn't take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my mind besides what Darren was telling me.'
Wilson who resigned without severance this week has never filled out an incident report, nor has he written a 'use of force' report or been asked to provide a formal statement to anyone other than his attorney.
So I suppose by this logic all those white kids "didn't just suddenly decide" to shoot up the school huh? And all their family and friends who described it as being completely out of character were just delusional too right?
OAW
Yep. They just didn't know the kids as well as they thought they did, or they're living in denial.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Edit: because if we are, they planned that for over a year.
Edit 2: they packed the entire school with explosives, Heathers style. Luckily, they failed to detonate. I'm mentioning this because I gather it never quite became common knowledge.
(
Last edited by subego; Dec 2, 2014 at 03:32 PM.
)
And as predicted ... the STL County Prosecutor's office didn't question Wilson about these discrepancies at all during the grand jury proceedings.
OAW
As I said in my analysis, for the purposes of the GJ, there are only three pieces of relevant testimony from Wilson.
1) Did he get hit?
2) If yes, did it put him in fear for his life?
3) If yes, did the fleeing Brown turn before he shot?
Wilson has been consistent on all three, therefore, for an inconsistency to be relevant, it must be of a scale to call those consistent statements into serious question.
The inconsistencies displayed here, coming from someone who has strong motivation to cover his ass as much as humanly possible, aren't high enough on the scale to push Wilson's three relevant statements into the realm of the improbable.
As I said in my analysis, for the purposes of the GJ, there are only three pieces of relevant testimony from Wilson.
1) Did he get hit?
2) If yes, did it put him in fear for his life?
3) If yes, did the fleeing Brown turn before he shot?
Wilson has been consistent on all three, therefore, for an inconsistency to be relevant, it must be of a scale to call those consistent statements into serious question.
The inconsistencies displayed here, coming from someone who has strong motivation to cover his ass as much as humanly possible, aren't high enough on the scale to push Wilson's three relevant statements into the realm of the improbable.
Ok let's roll with that.
1. That's debatable. Wilson gave a statement that Brown hit him so hard on the LEFT side of his face that he thought he was going to pass out. He claimed repeated punches by Brown. But his infamous "injury" is on the RIGHT side of his face. Not a bruise. A red mark that the grand jury transcripts show the jurors had trouble even seeing in the photograph. Furthermore, no physical evidence on Brown's hands to indicate any sort of punches. No cuts, scrapes, bruising. Nothing.
2. See #1 above. Suffice it to say I call BS on Wilson's story.
3. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Brown was initially shot right outside of the car. His blood was found on the OUTSIDE of the car door. Not inside the car which one would expect if his upper body were inside the vehicle and he was struggling for Wilson's gun. Johnson said it looked like he was struck in the chest because he saw blood on his shirt appear in that area. The physical evidence shows that Brown was initially shot in his thumb. But bear in mind that Wilson was sitting in an SUV. Not a "car" as so many media outlets erroneously report.
So Wilson was sitting up high. Now in order for Wilson to shoot Brown in the thumb through the driver window his hands would need to be up high near his chest. Which is what one would expect if there is some sort of struggle going on at the window. So it is entirely possible ... even probable in my view ... that blood from his thumb splattered onto his shirt in the chest area leading Johnson to erroneously but understandably conclude that Brown had been shot in the chest initially.
That being said, if you are talking about the subsequent shots then the autopsy results indicate a grazing wound to the side of Brown's arm. It was undetermined which direction that shot came from. However, several witnesses described Brown being "shot in the back" or making a "jerking motion" as he was fleeing. In all likelihood what they witnessed was Brown getting this grazing wound from behind which is what prompted him to stop, turn around, and attempt to surrender. After that, the physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony show that Brown was shot in the front of his body so clearly he had turned around at that point. The dispute is whether or not he was "charging" the officer who had already shot him once for sure and probably twice ... or if he was approaching Wilson to surrender. The physical evidence shows blood spatter approximately 20 feet beyond were Brown's body fell to the ground dead. So clearly he moved back towards Wilson. But witness testimony varies from "charging" to "moving" to "walking" to what the white construction worker described as ...
About 90 feet away from the vehicle, Wilson fired a shot at Brown, whose back was turned. Brown stumbled, stopped, put his hands up and said "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK." The worker believed Brown had been wounded. With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer, at which point Wilson began firing at Brown and backing away. After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker was unable to discern if Brown's movement toward the officer was "a stumble to the ground" or "OK, I'm going to get you, you're already shooting me." The worker disputed the claim that Brown rushed at the officer, "I don't know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die. It wasn't a bull rush."
A synopsis of the grand jury witness testimony ...
This great PBS NewsHour chart shows an analysis of the eyewitness testimony provided to the grand jury that investigated the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The chart shows many contradictions between some eyewitnesses — and lots of questions that went unanswered in different interviews.
There are two key points of near agreement: Brown was facing Ferguson Police officer Darren Wilson as he was fired upon, and Brown did have his hands up during his final moments.
St. Louis County Attorney Robert McCulloch has questioned the validity of the eyewitness testimony. During a Monday night press conference, McCulloch said some of the witnesses changed their stories, and that the physical evidence disproved some of their claims.
Vox's Amanda Taub explained why this was so unusual for a prosecutor who has full control of the evidence presented to a grand jury:
If McCulloch believed that this evidence was not credible, then why did he present it to the grand jury? It is perhaps understandable that he would have presented evidence with only minor credibility issues, in order to let the grand jury evaluate it. But McCulloch referenced "witnesses" who had only heard about the shooting from their neighbors, or from the media. It is hard to imagine a reason why it would have been reasonable to present that evidence to the grand jury.
And if McCulloch didn't present that testimony to the grand jury, then why discuss it during the press conference? What would be the purpose of bringing it up at all? By attacking the credibility of the eyewitnesses to the shooting, most, if not all, of whom had been publicly critical of Wilson, McCulloch gave the impression that he was acting as an advocate for Wilson.
Whatever the case, the grand jury also didn't appear to buy into the testimony of the eyewitnesses — and they ultimately decided to let Wilson go without a trial.
During the grand jury proceedings the STL County Assistant DA hands the grand jurors a Missouri statute that allows a police officer to use deadly force on a FLEEING SUSPECT. For WEEKS they evaluated all the evidence presented to them with this in mind. The thing is ... that particular law and those similar to it in other states around the country were ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the U.S. SUPREME COURT in 1985. The Assistant DA then tries to clean it all up weeks later and tells the grand jurors about this. But she never explains to them which portion of the Missouri statute was ruled unconstitutional. When a grand juror ... who we should all remember is a regular Joe/Jane Citizen and not a lawyer ... asks her the simple question of does the U.S. Supreme Court ruling override Missouri law ... she does NOT simply answer "Yes". She tells them ... "You don't need to worry about all that."
So we have STL County prosecutors who allow Wilson to testify before the grand jury and tell his side of the story for over 4 hours and never ONCE question the documented inconsistencies with his previous statements. Which is virtually unprecedented in and of itself. Nor do they do so for any witness that supported elements of Wilson's story. Yet they aggressively questioned any inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses who did NOT support Wilson's story. And on top of all that we have these shenanigans about a key Missouri statute!
Still don't think the fix was in as soon as STL County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch took this case to the grand jury?
Wow. Kill an unarmed black teenager. No criminal charges. And get a million dollar payday. That is disturbing to say the least. The silver lining though is that if this is true the Brown family now has a nice little chunk of change to go after if they decide to sue him in civil court.
MO needs to follow FL's lead by appointing a special prosecuter who will announce they are not going before a GJ and just flat out charge Wilson like Angela Corey did. Go to trial and let the chips fall.
Wow. Kill an unarmed black teenager. No criminal charges. And get a million dollar payday. That is disturbing to say the least. The silver lining though is that if this is true the Brown family now has a nice little chunk of change to go after if they decide to sue him in civil court.
OAW
As with the Zimmerman case, Brown's actions prior to the shooting can be brought into evidence.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 2, 2014, 06:27 PM
Originally Posted by OAW
^^^^
Wow. Kill an unarmed black teenager. No criminal charges. And get a million dollar payday. That is disturbing to say the least. The silver lining though is that if this is true the Brown family now has a nice little chunk of change to go after if they decide to sue him in civil court.
MO needs to follow FL's lead by appointing a special prosecuter who will announce they are not going before a GJ and just flat out charge Wilson like Angela Corey did. Go to trial and let the chips fall.
Agreed! That's what so many of us here have been requesting all along. Especially given Bob McCulloch's history. Now do I think Wilson would have been convicted? Hell no!!! It is nearly impossible to even indict let alone convict a police officer that kills an unarmed civilian. But an actual trial where all the evidence presented would be subject to cross-examination would have gone a long way towards lowering the likelihood of the public unrest we just witnessed.
While on the one hand this is certainly tasteless ... on the other hand I can imagine it is now very difficult for Zimmerman to make any income any other way.
It did not take long for Barkley to be called an Uncle Tom.
I'm not surprised, assuming we're not counting random twitter and facebook users.
Originally Posted by Chongo
BTW I have had the "pleasure" of being pulled over for "Driving While Mexican."
Did they ask for your papers?
Originally Posted by Chongo
MO needs to follow FL's lead by appointing a special prosecuter who will announce they are not going before a GJ and just flat out charge Wilson like Angela Corey did. Go to trial and let the chips fall.
That was kind of expected when all the history of the current DA came out, but he opted not to do that, for reasons we can only surmise. But to put it succinctly, I agree.
Yep. I was driving my cousin's lowrider to a friend's house in my neighborhood. (it had tinted windows) I think the cops expected to find it loaded with Cholos, but It was just me.
Wow. Kill an unarmed black teenager. No criminal charges. And get a million dollar payday. That is disturbing to say the least.
Stuff like this during the Zimmerman case is when I realized that all those claims last decade about a culture war weren't so crazy – it's just that only one side has declared.
Basically, a bunch of people see any attempts to change the status quo, as an attack on America. The system works for them, so it must work everybody. Any changes tot he system are people trying to rig it in their favor. So now they go out of their way to support shit like this because they want to stick it to people, rather looking at the actual facts, laws, or logic. George Zimmerman may have exercised his 2nd amendments rights recklessly, but by god, we can't let those PC people get him because the kid he stalked was black! That sets a terrible precedent!
You're a criminal? Then it's ok if you get killed by cops. If you don't like disproportionate responses, don't be a criminal. They basically endorse a Judge Dredd-like system. Because they think they're better than that. It can't happen to them. But it can. Remember the two ladies that got shot up in a truck while delivering papers during the Dorner manhunt? They weren't a large black man. That could have been you. That could have been anyone.
It leaves me wondering, am I a self-hating white? Am I too 'soft'? Why do I care about criminals getting shot in the streets instead of rotting in jail cells? I don't like criminals. I've never really known one. I'm not one myself. I've never stolen. Why do I care about people getting pulled over driving while black when it'll never happen to me? Hell, if we spread the suspicion around more equally I'll probably reduce the quality of my life by getting pulled over more.
What is it that I'm seeing that they can't? How am I defining equal treatment that they aren't?
That's where topics like these leave me in the long run.
Yep. I was driving my cousin's lowrider to a friend's house in my neighborhood. (it had tinted windows) I think the cops expected to find it loaded with Cholos, but It was just me.
I guess what I'm saying is, we can be wrong about Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, but still be right in asking the question. But to many, asking the question is paramount to supporting criminals and undermining the police. Anyone who was not troubled by the Michael Brown shooting should at the very least be troubled by how it was handled: Either the investigation, dealing with the protestors, dealing with the media, or the grand jury. However it feels like in the national discussion it isn't possible to have that kind of nuanced approach. I'll give credit that a few people here have had trouble with a few of those things I've mentioned. But in the end, it feels like more effort will be spent repudiating the initial controversy than joining forces to oppose the improper actions take in its wake. It's a missed opportunity.
It's not all bad, however. We seem to have gotten national consensus for bodycams.
I guess what I'm saying is, we can be wrong about Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, but still be right in asking the question. But to many, asking the question is paramount to supporting criminals and undermining the police. Anyone who was not troubled by the Michael Brown shooting should at the very least be troubled by how it was handled: Either the investigation, dealing with the protestors, dealing with the media, or the grand jury. However it feels like in the national discussion it isn't possible to have that kind of nuanced approach. I'll give credit that a few people here have had trouble with a few of those things I've mentioned. But in the end, it feels like more effort will be spent repudiating the initial controversy than joining forces to oppose the improper actions take in its wake. It's a missed opportunity.
I hear what you are saying. My observation is that there are members of the white community who are simply in complete denial about the realities of systemic, institutionalized racism in America in general ... and within police departments in particular. And to even broach the topic makes you the "real racist". There are others who may recognize this but still have a distinct lack of empathy when EXCESSIVE FORCE is used against non-white people if they are in any way not the "perfect victim". Mike Brown stole a handful of cigarillos that cost about 33 cents each ... so he deserved to catch 6 bullets and screw the residents of the Canfield Green Apartments who had their homes shot up as Wilson unloaded his weapon. And the underlying conditions that led to nationwide protests erupting over this situation don't really matter because the same doesn't happen when black criminals kill other black people. And then there are those members of the white community who don't fall into these categories.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
It's not all bad, however. We seem to have gotten national consensus for bodycams.
Indeed. I never expected Wilson would ever be convicting for the killing of Mike Brown. The legal system is stacked too much in favor of police officers for that to happen. I was hoping that he would have to be on the "hot seat" of a trial at least. Because maybe that would send a message to other police officers that they can't just have a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality with black males and just expect to walk with no consequences as they historically do. Unfortunately, that was not the case. So I'm optimistic that Mike Brown's legacy will move the needle on the more widespread use of police body cams. And maybe that will act as a restraining force on some of these trigger happy police officers.
My observation is that there are members of the white community who are simply in complete denial about the realities of systemic, institutionalized racism in America in general ... and within police departments in particular.
In light of that, I want to remind everyone again that STL is one of the most racially polarized metropolitan areas in the country. I'm also from here ... so I'm very familiar with the dynamic. So when this story went national ...
... many if not most people around the country assumed that this particular organization spoke for the entire STL police department. But the reality is that it is essentially the WHITE STL Police Officer's union. Led by Jeff Roorda the former officer convicted of falsifying police reports. Now there is nothing explicitly exclusionary in the bylaws of the organization but that is the de facto reality. So it's notable that the BLACK STL Police Officer's union had a very different view regarding the Rams players actions ...
St. Louis is more racially segregated than many of us ever truly understood. Even the police officers in the city have separate organizations advocating on behalf of white and black interests.
When the Jeff Roorda and the predominantly white St. Louis Police Officers Association came out with a statement to blast the pre-game "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" gesture done by five players from the St. Louis Rams and declared that they should be fined, suspended, and offer an apology, it was wrongly assumed by many that Roorda spoke for all of the police in St. Louis. He didn't.
The black police officer's association in St. Louis issued a bold statement declaring their complete support for the players. Gloria McCollum, general counsel for their association, just issued the following statement on their behalf.
THE ETHICAL SOCIETY OF POLICE, is the primary voice of African American Police Officers in St. Louis City, and as such it COMPLETELY SUPPORTS THE ACTIONS OF THE ST. LOUIS RAMS FOOTBALL PLAYERS IN WHICH THEY SHOWED SUPPORT FOR THE FAMILY OF MICHAEL BROWN BY ENTERING THE STADIUM WITH THEIR HANDS UP.
We think that their actions were commendable and that they should not be ridiculed, disciplined or punished for taking a stand on this very important issue which is of great concern around the world and especially in the community where these players work.
THE STATEMENTS OF THE ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION DO NOT REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE MAJORITY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN POLICE OFFICERS IN THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO AFRICAN AMERICAN OFFICERS ON THEIR GOVERNING BOARD AND THEY HAVE A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN MEMBERS.
The Ethical Society of Police has been the primary bridge between African American community and the police department for many years. The Ethical Society will use its best efforts to continue to work with the community leaders and the Department of Justice to address issues that affect our community such as racial profiling, police brutality and disparities in hiring and disciplining practices of African American Officers.
While it is often widely assumed that black and white officers feel the same about issues of race and police brutality, it is clear that this is not the case in St. Louis and that the divide between officers there echoes the deeper divide in the city itself.
And it's not just the STL PD. The STL Fire Department also has separate "white" and "black" unions because of the decades long history of discrimination in the former. So these are the kind of local realities that everyone needs to keep in mind when reading such stories out of the area. Just saying ...
I guess what I'm saying is, we can be wrong about Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, but still be right in asking the question. But to many, asking the question is paramount to supporting criminals and undermining the police. Anyone who was not troubled by the Michael Brown shooting should at the very least be troubled by how it was handled: Either the investigation, dealing with the protestors, dealing with the media, or the grand jury. However it feels like in the national discussion it isn't possible to have that kind of nuanced approach. I'll give credit that a few people here have had trouble with a few of those things I've mentioned. But in the end, it feels like more effort will be spent repudiating the initial controversy than joining forces to oppose the improper actions take in its wake. It's a missed opportunity.
Along those lines, I don't really want to defend Wilson, precisely because the system is so stacked in his favor. I more feel forced to, because that's my reading of the available evidence.
Top