Slashdot Mirror
Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting
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" 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.
Love sees no species.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't even know why comments are enabled on this one
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.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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?
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.
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, they see that as routine. "I shot a suspect who rushed me" is the end of the investigation for them.
We need those attitudes and policies changed by lawmakers, the problem isn't that Police are acting badly, its that they are allowed to act badly.
The KKK? Seriously? The organization that's down to 2000 members total, 10% of which are FBI agents? Did you just wake up from a sixty year nap?
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".
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Taco, can we get a -1 RACE CARD mod on Slashdot?
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.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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?
When a white guy beats up a black guy, it's racist. When a black guy beats up a white guy, it's social justice... Your morality stinks.
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.
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.
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?
The child should have been taught not to waive a bb gun without an orange tip in a public area...
/sung to the tune of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"/
Social Justice Warriors! Deciding the truth based on progressive stack!
Social Justice Warriors! If you don't think like us we bring the attack!
Doesn't matter if you kill or steal, you aren't white so you're "keepin it real", and if you have a vag you can do no wrong, just believe like us and you can sing this song!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Statistics have shown that it's much less likely to get shot by the police when you're working on your job, than when you go around robbing convenience stores.
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.
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.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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 particular Grand Jury proceeding.
and the physical evidence may seem to point towards it being justified, but that also doesnt excuse the fact this particular police department has a history of racial abuse, and that they reacted extremely poorly to the protests, putting further racial animus on display, caught on camera by the press. this incident was simply the tipping point for this town.
unfortuantely that whole discussion has been lost int he noise over Brown/Wilson, and rather than having the discussion they need to have, its going to go on the back burner. and erupt again further down the road.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
youve been listening to too many conservatives if you believe those people are anyones heroes.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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 have happened.
Which details of the physical evidence and multiple, corroborated eye witness accounts are you having trouble with, exactly? Please be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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 documents in front of your eyes don't include the testimony of eye witnesses. Or have you finally got around to reading it, and you're changing your story, just like the debunked media-frenzy "witnesses" did?
And, ranting? You're the one who's been linked directly to the body of documents that completely satisfies your fake concern that the eye witnesses didn't really exist, and that their testimony doesn't say what the grand jury concluded that it said. So much energy you're putting into pretending it's not there for you to read! Why?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.