Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting 1128
An anonymous reader writes: A grand jury in Missouri has decided there is no probable cause to charge police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. "A grand jury of nine whites and three blacks had been meeting weekly since Aug. 20 to consider evidence. At least nine votes would have been required to indict Wilson. The Justice Department is conducting an investigation into possible civil rights violations that could result in federal charges." Government officials and Brown's family are urging calm in Ferguson after the contentious protests that followed Brown's death.
The "Protesters" (Score:4, Insightful)
The "protesters" in Ferguson right now are burning cars, breaking into stores, in general being asshats.
They're not interested in any kind of justice. They're only interested in revenge.
Re:The "Protesters" (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of the protesters are demonstrating peacefully. Of course, that doesn't excuse the asshats. Par for the course, sadly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the media is hoping things get out of control. They probably have their "Ferguson In Flames" news overlay ready in anticipation.
Re:The "Protesters" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The "Protesters" (Score:5, Informative)
Why aren't the protesters reigning in the asshats, then?
Actually, they are. Sorry for the lack of a link, but I heard on NPR that many protesters were trying to "talk down" others after the decision came out.
Re: (Score:3)
One question: Why can't the "majority" reign in the "minority" that are looting/etc? All it would take is the 'majority' of peaceful protestors to grab the looters (should be easy, remember, they vastly outnumber them, right?), and turn them over to the cops. (Or at the very least, rough them up and send them home.)
But this never happens. Just like the 'majority' of "good" cops never arrests the tiny, tiny minority of "Bad" cops. And the reason is simple: the "good" ones are really bad, too! They may not show it as... violently, but they are still on the same side as the 'bad' ones. There is no other excuse for not turning in the bad ones.
Complete and utter pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing the looters are opportunistic criminals anyway, so they're good at spotting a chance to break in, steal, and get out quickly and whilst no one is really looking. And if you're a peaceful protester, you're not likely going to be looking for trouble, and likely you'll avoid that because you don't especially want to either be injured or arrested.
I did see one video clip of a bunch basically rioters... and it looked like probably 30 people, all
Re: (Score:2)
It really sucks, I grew up about mile away and Ferguson was coming back. Many new stores, restaurants and generally new things to do in downtown Ferguson. Everything is basically boarded up now and still hasn't recovered.
Re:The "Protesters" (Score:5, Interesting)
In 1995 I was in Dusseldorf, Germany, taking part in a large peaceful protest that occurs annually there. It's a march through the centre of the city, all mapped out in advance. Police in full riot gear were on hand, as they are every year. Thousands of them, brought in from all over the country. The previous year, some shitheads had started rioting, and some shops were looted. As we marched through the streets, I remember noticing bystanders gathered along the planned route, just watching the march. Nothing unusual there. Except that there just happened to be particularly large clusters of bystanders, mainly young man, watching the march from right in front of each liquor store and electronics store that we passed. I found that to be an interesting coincidence.
Unfortunately for the "bystanders", that year's march remained peaceful, so they didn't get the opportunity to cash in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know that the justice system failed. I wasn't a witness, and I haven't reviewed all the evidence the grand jury saw.
IF the justice system failed, heck, even if it didn't and people wrongly think it did, I'm totally fine with them protesting. You can have a million man march for too much mayo on your sandwich if you want, that's fine with me. I just draw the line at busting up property (or heads) of people who had nothing to do with this at all. Burning businesses and looting is NOT taking action
Present without comments (Score:3, Insightful)
It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We the public don't yet know all the facts. [...]
If it went to trial, we *would* know all the facts.
A grand jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence, it only decides whether a trial should happen.
[...] that would have been the case regardless of the races of each person involved.
Apropos of nothing, if there was strong statistical evidence that this statement was flat-out wrong, would you change your opinion?
Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score:5, Informative)
I take it you've never been involved in a criminal trial. The jury will only know the facts that are presented at trial. This is almost always a subset, sometimes a substantial one, of "all the facts".
Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score:5, Informative)
If it went to trial, we *would* know all the facts.
No, no you wouldn't. You would only know what the prosecution and defense could find and present. Nothing more, nothing less.
As it so happens, the DA promised to release all the evidence they have to the public shortly. When, how, and in what format I do not know, but nonetheless, that's what they intend to do according to their statement.
A grand jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence, it only decides whether a trial should happen.
Agreed. The reason for having one in the first place is to determine whether there is enough credible evidence and testimony to be worth a trial.
Re: (Score:3)
However, this should have been a very easy case for the jury.
This was the indictment, not the trial proper. They could easily have just passed the buck upward - indict him, let another jury sort it out, and hopefully the mob will have died down in the year or two it takes to try him. Even if they thought he was innocent, that would probably have been for the greater good. As it is now, I expect the jurors will have to flee town if their identities are ever leaked.
Re: (Score:3)
The cop was not ruled innocent. You dont know what a grand jury does. Hint it does not rule on innocence. All it does it decide if there is enough evidence to potentially convict.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. If there is no trial it does not mean you did not commit the crime, it just means you will treated as though you were innocent by the law.
livestream (Score:2)
For real? (Score:2)
That seems 'legit', given the other events in Ferguson. FTW.
I just don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to rant about how guilty Darren Wilson was. To tell the truth, I don't know if he was guilty. But I just don't understand how there wasn't enough evidence to at least take this to trial. There were multiple witnesses saying that Mike Brown had his hands up and was not attacking Darren Wilson when he was shot. This alone to me is enough to at least take it to trial and see all the evidence to try and figure out exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, all of the emphasis has been on everything except what it should have been. It doesn't matter what Mike Brown was doing before the confrontation, or if he smoked pot. It doesn't even matter what happened with the struggle at the car (whether Mike Brown dove through the window trying for the gun or Darren Wilson grabbed him and pull him in the window). The only thing that matter is what was going on when Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown. If Mike Brown was standing (or kneeling as some reports say) with his hands up and not attacking anyone, then Darren Wilson murdered Mike Brown. If Mike Brown was charging to attack Darren Wilson when he was shot, then is was a good shooting. Unfortunately, with this grand jury decision, we will never get an answer to that. I just don't understand how with the witnesses that have come forward, they couldn't find enough evidence that maybe there was wrong doing to want all the evidence to come out so we can have answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we can decide for ourselves, based on that evidence. Until then, you are speculating that 'it should have gone to trial' without reasonable facts to support it.
I could speculate on reasonable reasons it didn't go to trial or rant about the media coverage emphasizing an unarmed 'teenager'
Re:I just don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is those witnesses were discredited by the investigation. Their statements contradicted physical evidence and some admitted they had fabricated their testimony when crossed.
The prosecutor is releasing all the evidence.
It sounds like some of them changed testimony (Score:2)
Now why they changed I dunno, but that can change things. Also there was supposedly physical evidence that contradicted witness statements.
However if you are interested, it sounds like the unusual step of opening up the grand jury records will be taken in this case. So, keep up with it and read the transcript when it is available, and then see what you conclude.
Re: (Score:2)
How was there Brown's blood more than 150 feet from the cop car and Brown's body was fell around 130 feet(blood splatter does not go 20+ feet) ? Actually most sources said Browns was making some forward progress.
Re: (Score:3)
A trial would have been a waste of time.
The grand jury is stacked against the defendant in several ways. First, there is no defense. Second, the standard is "probable cause" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Third, the grand jury only needs 9 votes to indict, while the trial needs 12 votes to convict. If the three quarters of the grand jury doesn't find, using very low standards, and without and defense opposition, that there was enough evidence to even warrant a trial (which would be done with ve
Re: (Score:3)
The bigger issue is that particular departments history of racial discrimination.
At this point, and in that context, Brown/Wilson doesnt even matter.
It was simply the straw that broke the camel's for that town, where they decided they'd had enough
They still need to ahve that discussion.
They need to resolve that department's problem with discrimination.
or else this is all going to happen all over again in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
There has never been a dispute that there was some king of altercation at the car, and that a gun went off. The evidence of Brown's blood on Wilson, the gunshot residue on Brown and the bullet inside the car all corroborate that. The issue is what happened after Brown ran away - was h
Re:Moderate BS (Score:5, Informative)
Especially batshit irrelevant, as the cop had no idea there was a reported robbery
Why are you lying about this? What's your agenda that you are deliberately spreading false information?
Wilson was on another call nearby (helping with a baby that was having trouble breathing). He heard over his radio that there was a local retail store that had just had the strong-arm robbery we saw on video. After a minute or two more on the local situation, he left, and started in his cruiser down the road. He saw two guys walking down the middle of the street and as he passed, told them to get over to the sidewalk. When he got close, he noted that the 270-pound guy was a perfect match, right down to the red hat and yellow socks, for the description he had just heard on the radio. Before he confronted Brown, he got on the radio and said he had eyes on two individuals, and that he needed backup.
He pulled his cruiser backwards at an angle to cut off their jaunty stroll down the middle of the street and to block other traffic, and went to get out of his cruiser. Brown slammed the cruiser door shut, twice, and punched Wilson in the face, through the window. Before he got hit a third time, Wilson went for his weapon in order to get that huge guy to back off. Brown tried to grab it (his DNA is on the gun), and the gun went off in the car. Twice. One of those shots grazed Brown's thumb, leaving up-close powder marks. He (Brown) started to back off and walk away, and Wilson got out to stop him. Multiple witnesses (including half a dozen African Americans who came forward on their own to the police, and weren't interested in media attention) corroborated all of this, including what happened next (Brown turns around and moves at Wilson, who fires a few times, winging Brown - Wilson STOPS shooting and again tells Brown to stop - Brown then charges at Wilson who shoots again until Brown stops). There's blood on the street that shows Brown covered significant distance TOWARDS Wilson, just as described by those same witnesses.
Wilson was exactly aware that there had been a robbery, saw matching perps, and called it in. You know this, everyone knows this, and the people who are deliberately skipping over that simple fact (there are recordings!) are deliberately lying. Like you are, right now.
Prosecutors can 'indict a ham sandwich' with a grand jury.
Prosecutors can't do a damn thing unless they present that grand jury with compelling evidence and the GRAND JURY decides there's probable cause to bring charges. Grand juries routinely opt not to indict people, despite the fervent wishes of prosecutors. Another thing that you know is true, but about which you are lying for some reason. Not quite sure what your actual purpose is in doing so. It's strange.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the officers testimony. You know, the guy who will be on hook for murder if it goes to trial. Are you really surprised he spun a yarn that makes him look innocent?
It's the officer's testimony AND THE TESTIMONY OF MULTIPLE WITNESSES. And every bit of it is backed up by physical evidence. Unlike the made-for-the-media BS the first "witnesses" dished out, which all fell apart the moment those same people were asked serious questions. Many of them admitted to the grand jury that they never actually saw anything, and were just repeating something they'd heard. Others changed their story dramatically as soon as it was pointed out that what they described couldn't possibly
Re: (Score:3)
That's incorrect: no judge ever had a hand in creating it.
A judge is the ONLY person who gets to decide how that information is made available. That means he goes over every bit of it for context, and the entire package is his product, with his reputation at stake for making mistakes in what's released and how it impacts the anonymity of the witnesses involved. There is no provider of that information except for the judge.
You're now claiming witnesses don't exist? After you started off claiming there were 7, six of whom were African-American? You can't even keep your own story straight.
I realize that English is not your native tongue, so I appreciate how much you're trying here. But we're talking about YOUR assertion that the
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. (Score:2)
Case Closed.
When 9 votes are required to send it ... (Score:3)
to a petite jury, and there are 9 whites, it's possible to vote racially and not send it to trial. There should have been more blacks on the grand Jury to ward against that...
Not that it would matter to the hooligans.
Re: (Score:3)
Grand jury selection is (usually) random, and hence statistically representative of the community. Furthermore, you're presuming that this is a racial issue, that both the black and the white jurors disregarded their job and instead just voted based on their political convictions. Is there any evidence to support such an accusation?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, yes, we did pay attention to what you said. You delude yourself into thinking that your beliefs about race are beneficial and just, but in the end, you're of the same political persuasion as the people who brought us segregation, eugenics, and forced sterilizations.
I'm glad there is rioting. (Score:2)
(Note: The decision(*) was handed down 2 hours ago and already there's rioting.)
I recently posted about a fire inspector reacting to a problem in the most dickish way possible [slashdot.org].
The responses were surprising and enlightening. On the topic of his actions, each and every one of the respondents felt that the inspector reacted appropriately, that he in fact had to react in the most extreme manner possible, and that it was the right thing to do(**).
If you agree with this position, then it's OK for police to shoot
Did at least one black vote not to indict? (Score:3)
Because otherwise, I don't think the answer of a 67% white grand jury is acceptable to a town that is 67% black and patrolled by a police force that's about 94% white and which hires people who are from other police departments which were shut down because they were too racist.
If at least one black voted not to indict then it gives the process some legitimacy.
If all three voted not to indict then the answer will probably be accepted eventually.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparent legitimacy, you mean.
If I'd been in that jury room, I wouldn't have let that cop get away with it, if I had probable cause. And not because Brown was a black kid, but because he would have been a person wrongfully killed by the police and police corruption personally disgusts me.
I am plenty white, and the assertion that I am unable to listen to evidence and come to an impartial decision is ridiculous. I understand that we'd all feel better if there was a black person saying it was all okay, but f
Has the trend away from blunt force led to this? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I know, the American police used to use a lot more blunt force -- flashlights, billy clubs, night sticks, beavertail saps, sap gloves -- to subdue people.
Over the past few decades, and especially since Rodney King's beating, blunt force seems to be off the menu. It has been somewhat replaced by the Taser, but their cost and the increasing awareness of the risk of death seems to have blunted (sorry) its use.
I wonder if the elimination of blunt force from the police toolkit has somehow led to a situation where "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" kind of a situation, where the police have come to see many situations that may have in the past been responded to with blunt force instead getting treated as a situation to shoot.
Physical confrontations without the use of an alternate weapon often boil down to wrestling matches which can quickly become a pulled gun or a struggle for an officer's gun, and many times a physical struggle is justified as a reason to shoot.
None of this to say that people weren't beaten for unjust reasons, but they also weren't killed, either.
When cops carried blunt force weapons they also knew how to use them in a way to inflict pain in a way that gained submission but also in a way that avoided major injury, since major injury didn't necessarily work in their favor. They seemed to have a spectrum of force available instead of a binary choice of shooting or not shooting.
Flip Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OK to try and harm someone just because they are wearing a badge and talking to you?
Equally disgusting...
Because that's what the physical evidence, and now a grand jury who had ALL the facts, said.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:4, Interesting)
And they can't possibly ever be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are wrong then there is no indictment. What does wrong have to do with it?
Re:Flip Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
So just because the victim is a minority means they ARE wrong?
If not, what are we supposed to do, just ignore the justice system every time some people don't like the result?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Taco, can we get a -1 RACE CARD mod on Slashdot?
Re:MOD PARENT RACIST (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's OK to try and harm someone just because they are wearing a badge and talking to you?
Equally disgusting...
Because that's what the physical evidence, and now a grand jury who had ALL the facts, said.
Have you heard a statement from anyone who was on the grand jury? I know I haven't. Just because the grand jury reached a verdict does not mean they endorse the sentence you just wrote. I haven't seen all the evidence that was presented to them, either; I don't know how much you may have seen. We need to close the tabs to the various spin sites we each prefer for the case and wait until we actually hear more from the jury and the lawyers who presented to them. The decision of the grand jury is not the
Re: (Score:2)
Brown's DNA was found Wilson's gun, on inside and outside of the car and Wilson's uniform and finally .Brown's blood was found on the inside and outside of the car also. If that isn't enough to use lethal force, I don't know what would be.
PS I also grew up Dellwood, my childhood home is about 1 mile where they are rioting.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wilson shot Brown in the car, which has never been disputed.
What news have you been watching? "Hands up, don't shoot"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Flip Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Which was started by his friend Dorian Johnson who was recorded in local media saying " I kicked the cops door" .For some reason the national news didn't play that one. Justice for Mike Brown, Dorian Johnson should be charged with manslaughter. See why Dorian Johnson might want to lie.
Re: (Score:3)
"Hands up, don't shoot" is supposed to imply that the shooting was unjustified. It would seem that the shooting was, in fact, justified. I don't really know - I wasn't there, and the other party is dead. The protesters have real and valid grievances, but their message is completely lost at the moment.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
But the fatal one that occurred 150 feet away from the original scuffle, after Brown had surrendered? Not a fucking chance.
There is a grand jury who disagrees with the version of events that you have imagined.
But you made up your mind about the officer a long time ago, so I'm wasting my time.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.
Only problem was: The fatal shot was fired when he was running / charging in the direction of the officer. (If you bothered to listen to the forensic evidence... oh wait: you are one of those "I've already made up my mind, con't confuse me with facts.)
Re:Flip Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
I submit to you that you do not know what happened. Don't feel bad- very few people outside of the 12 members of the Grand Jury have heard all of known facts of the case. I certainly don't know what happened.
But please keep this in mind. Things that you accept as fact are not really facts. Case in point: your assumption that Brown had surrendered. Some of the sworn testimony that was released tonight following the prosecutor's press conference indicates that Brown had not surrendered, and in fact was charging the police officer "like a football player" with his head down and fists clenched. And at the same time, as the prosecutor detailed in his press conference, much of the early eye witness accounts that indicated that Brown had surrendered did not hold up under further scrutiny.
As I said, I don't know what happened, but I think this is enough to move the narrative that Brown had surrendered out of the "fact" category.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
7 witnesses (black) collaborated cop's story. Brown was running at the cop, after beating him and pulling his gun, which then went off in the car. The cop did the correct thing by trying to stop the offender and as the offender charged at him, the cop fired multiple rounds, hitting Brown in the hands and torso, which didn't stop the charge and so the cop finished off the offender by firing into his head. If somebody attacked me (and I am not a cop and never will be) and tried taking my gun away and tried beating me and then charged at me from a distance, I would have shot him as well, would have emptied the entire clip and the colour is absolutely irrelevant.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:4, Interesting)
12 shots, 12 hits to the torso.
A thoroughy justifiable shoot.
Not.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:4, Interesting)
But the fatal one that occurred 150 feet away from the original scuffle, after Brown had surrendered?
Except your fantasy version of events didn't actually happen. Multiple (African American, no less) witnesses (whose stories didn't change once asked real questions) came forward of their own volition and explained what happened. Brown didn't surrender. He didn't have his hands up. And he did charge at the cop again after assaulting him the first time.
Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.
But punching him in the face, trying to lay hands on the officer's gun, and then turning around and charging at him seconds later after being told to stop IS grounds for a guy (who'd just been slammed back into his cruiser and punched in his face) to feel threatened when a 6' 270-lb guy rushes him. I'd like to see your reaction. Arms out for a big hug, probably?
Re: (Score:3)
I made up my mind based on the facts that have been presented. I am open to having my opinion changed once presented with further compelling facts. Unfortunately, absent a trial, that's not likely to happen.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go: 181 pages of testimony that the Grand Jury heard.
https://cbsstlouis.files.wordp... [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I made up my mind based on the facts that have been presented. I am open to having my opinion changed once presented with further compelling facts. Unfortunately, absent a trial, that's not likely to happen.
At this point, if you want to cite, "fact", that is contrary to evidence that was presented to the grand jury, it is incumbent on you to provide some justification for why the grand jury evidence is incorrect. Otherwise, you really only reveal your prejudice (as you have in this thread) and appear as a troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Brown's DNA was found on the gun not blood. Brown had powder burns on his hand. Since you are too dumb to figure this out, I will answer it for you. Brown was fucking grabbing for his gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Also one round went through the inside the door and out the other side. So Wilson was not shooting through the window.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard a statement from anyone who was on the grand jury?
Of course you haven't [cornell.edu]
(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
Disclosure is contempt of court, so you won't hear from the grand jurors:
(7) Contempt. A knowing violation of Rule 6, or of any guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under Rule 6, may be punished as a contempt of court.
Disclosure would interfere with the right to a fair trial of the accused.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in this case the prosecutor declared the case closed so sunshine laws apply. We know what evidence they saw though we know nothing of the deliberations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they made up the video of Brown in the store acting very abusively toward the shopkeeper?
And they made up all of the videos and photographs of blacks rioting in the aftermath of the shooting?
Right-o, bub.
Re: (Score:3)
The former would be irrelevant to the case since there was no way the cops could have had that information at the time of the shooting.
The latter would be irrelevant since it involves no on in the case.
Re: (Score:3)
All the facts they asked for. They have the power to subpoena anyone they want.
Re:Flip Argument (Score:4, Informative)
Are you sure about that? [northwestern.edu]
Looks to me like the grand jury can only get information that the prosecutor wants them to get.
Re: (Score:3)
See, for e.g.:
"What is a "runaway" grand jury?" http://campus.udayton.edu/~gra... [udayton.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope the gentle giant was trying to jump through the police officers car window to give up himself up after robbing a store. This is how Brown's DNA was found Wilson's gun, on inside and outside of the car and Wilson's uniform and the blood that was found on the inside and outside of the car.
Brown watch too much Duke's of Hazards growing up and thought this was the way to enter a car.
Re: (Score:2)
You want pathetic? What about poor Brandon Howell?
http://www.kctv5.com/story/274... [kctv5.com]
Re: (Score:2)
but it's ok to burn down a pizza place and pharmacy, right?
Oh look, there goes a McDonald's too. Up in flames.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's ok to be a murdering thug if you wear a badge, right?
Disgusting.
I think everybody is missing the important distinction here. We're mad at what happened instead of being mad at the policies and laws that allow this kind of thing.
The grand jury didn't indict him because hes a cop. Cops are allowed to, expected to use lethal force. Cops are not required to risk themselves for members of the public. When I feel like I'm being threatened by somebody I'm required by law to try and leave, Cops are allowed to pull a gun and shoot. And to the legal system they are a part of, the
Re: (Score:3)
It's ok to be a murdering thug if you wear a badge, right?
Disgusting.
Fuck the judicial system when it does not reflect my personal prejudices, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Police officers don't kill people--physics kills people!
Re: (Score:2)
Brandon Howell thanks you for your support!
http://www.kctv5.com/story/274... [kctv5.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The prosecutor presented all witness testimony. All of it. And he most certainly did present that evidence, he also presented why he didn't find it credible.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, the unchallengeable phantasmic aura of his bias.
Christ, there are enough real examples of police brutality against minorities without having to resort to one that appears so dubious.
Re: (Score:3)
the prosecutor failed to recuse himself even though he has a definite history of siding with police and being lax in regards to charging or investigating them. you cant really say he did his level best to preserve the ideals of justice. he slow walked the entire process, didnt explain things in court for the record, there were leaks to the press from his office, all damning and prejudicial to the proceedings...
I'd be content to accept the official desicion if there werent so many problems with this particul
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok to be a thug who roughs up old shopkeepers to steal form them, and then punch a cop and try to grab a gun? I'm supposed to feel sorry at the death of that kind of low life?
The old shopkeeper was asking for it. You *must* be a racist.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll be happy that the accountability has stopped them from beating and killing people without cause.
And we know they have in the past since there have been actual convictions.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called "Leftism". It is an ideology, and ideologies are not subject to reason or facts.
Anyone who uses the term "Leftism" to define all non-conservative political viewpoints has the bright, sunny worldview of a child who has tasted his first crack hit.
Re: (Score:3)
youve been listening to too many conservatives if you believe those people are anyones heroes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They likely waited to both allow the police to set up and for the weather to degrade a bit hoping less protesters would suffer the elements.
Of course i'm wondering why this is even on slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
So... you don't see any chance that the grand jury reached their decision without KKK involvement? What about aliens? or the Illuminati? Maybe the Trilateral Commission?
I think Occam's razor is more likely.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, petty thievery demands execution. Spot on, mate! Spot on!
What do you say we do with the swarthy cads who cross the road without even having the decency to use a crosswalk, guv'nuh?
Re: (Score:3)
Two different things: what you said was, he got what he deserved -- he was a petty thief. If the circumstance you have just fleshed out is the actual circumstance, it's a lot more justified than implying that someone who has done some ridiculously minor crime like petty theft deserves to be executed on the street. You can easily paint any scenario you want to suit a justification, though, so paint away.
Re:The wrong problem (Score:4)
Calling someone over to your car to talk to them is "getting in to a fist fight"?
Wilson called for backup, but it is his duty as a police officer to keep track of the suspect and delay them, arresting by himself, if he had no other choice.
And when the assailant not only did not heed commands to halt after that fight, but then turned on him and charged, the cop is now a cowboy?
There was nothing about this that had to turn into a fight. Cops have the right to talk to you without punches being thrown. If a cop wanted to talk to me... I'd talk to him, albeit with some concern about what he wanted and thinking about my civil rights. None of that requires me to attack the cop.
Brown just knocked over a convenience store. So, I understand why he started a fight, even if it was still a colossally stupid thing to do. What I don't see is how the cop is now responsible for starting a fight by doing what he did.
Re: (Score:3)