# Opinions on Ferguson, Missouri situation?



## margarok (Jan 16, 2009)

Hello, Eh Mac friends and neighbors! I have recently returned from supervising the building of my husband's and my log home in the Missouri Ozarks and am sickened by what has occurred in Ferguson, Missouri. Since we have opted to eliminate all but local Television here in Oklahoma, we rely on internet sources for news and commentary. I came here tonight to see what you all thought about the "crisis" in St. Louis.

And discovered it hasn't even been discussed!

So... let me introduce what I find disturbing and see if anyone would like to explain to me why it isn't a big deal at all.

I personally am horrified by what is going on in Ferguson, Missouri. I follow a forum that provided a link to an eyewitness account of the killing of the teen that led to this. The link is no longer active and the news is NOT covering this at all. I'm posting it here because I think it is important.

...This MSNBC interview with an eyewitness to the Michael Brown shooting (which, unless you have twitter, you probably haven’t heard about because every major network has simply refused to cover the story in any detail whatsoever) is absolutely chilling:

The police say the officer shot Brown after the teen shoved the officer and tried to wrestle the officer’s gun from him. But a number of witnesses, including Johnson, refute those claims. And in the wake of the shooting, the Ferguson Police Department has asked the St. Louis County police to step in and take over the investigation.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-cont...mages/blockquo...) 100% 100% no-repeat;">***

About 20 minutes before the shooting, Johnson said he saw Brown walking down the street and decided to catch up with him. The two walked and talked. That’s when Johnson says they saw the police car rolling up to them.

The officer demanded that the two “get the f—k on the sidewalk,” Johnson says. “His exact words were get the f—k on the sidewalk.”

After telling the officer that they were almost at their destination, Johnson’s house, the two continued walking. But as they did, Johnson says the officer slammed his brakes and threw his truck in reverse, nearly hitting them.

Now, in line with the officer’s driver’s side door, they could see the officer’s face. They heard him say something to the effect of, “what’d you say?” At the same time, Johnson says the officer attempted to thrust his door open but the door slammed into Brown and bounced closed. Johnson says the officer, with his left hand, grabbed Brown by the neck.

“I could see the muscles in his forearm,” Johnson said. “Mike was trying to get away from being choked.”

“They’re not wrestling so much as his arm went from his throat to now clenched on his shirt,” Johnson explained of the scene between Brown and the officer. “It’s like tug of war. He’s trying to pull him in. He’s pulling away, that’s when I heard, ‘I’m gonna shoot you.’”

At that moment, Johnson says he fixed his gaze on the officer to see if he was pulling a stun gun or a real gun. That’s when he saw the muzzle of the officer’s gun.

“I seen the barrel of the gun pointed at my friend,” he said. “He had it pointed at him and said ‘I’ll shoot,’ one more time.”

A second later Johnson said he heard the first shot go off.

“I seen the fire come out of the barrell,” he said. “I could see so vividly what was going on because I was so close.”

Johnson says he was within arm’s reach of both Brown and the officer. He looked over at Brown and saw blood pooling through his shirt on the right side of the body.

“The whole time [the officer] was holding my friend until the gun went off,” Johnson noted.

Brown and Johnson took off running together. There were three cars lined up along the side of the street. Johnson says he ducked behind the first car, whose two passengers were screaming. Crouching down a bit, he watched Brown run past.

“Keep running, bro!,” he said Brown yelled. Then Brown yelled it a second time. Those would be the last words Johnson’s friend, “Big Mike,” would ever say to him.

Brown made it past the third car. Then, “blam!” the officer took his second shot, striking Brown in the back. At that point, Johnson says Brown stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”

By that point, Johnson says the officer and Brown were face-to-face. The officer then fired several more shots. Johnson described watching Brown go from standing with his hands up to crumbling to the ground and curling into a fetal position... ) end of article.

I realize the race element is part of this, but I think all of us paying attention know that the militaristic nature of our police forces (no longer servants, are they?) are frightening.

My friend in Ireland shares this: We had armed police with batons, we had British army in tanks at peaceful protests....they shot and killed unarmed people in Derry and other places and denied it for 40 years....said there were gunmen in the crowd. This is all too familiar to me, Margar.Really...they can do and say what they want to....who is going to argue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Does anyone else believe this is a major turning point in my country?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Until there's a thorough investigation, I will hold my tongue on eyewitness accounts. I'm in no position to compare the various stories. I don't think it's a turning point for the U.S. at all. It won't be the first unarmed person killed by police, or the first riot.


----------



## margarok (Jan 16, 2009)

Perhaps one reason it "feels" different to me now is due to the fact that this event is close to home for me, with St. Louis being less than 100 miles from our new home, while other examples of police brutality tend to happen in L.A., NYC, Texas, etc... i.e., over there somewhere.

But the talk here on local news programs, in social settings, among neighbors is about the militarization of our law enforcement agencies. It is as if we have suddenly awakened to find ourselves in war zones, with our public law enforcement "servants" equipped to take us all on. Of course, those of us who have our own weapons believe they will eventually come for our guns.

Anyway, I was just chatting online with my friend in Ireland, who has a unique view about police brutality, having lived through decades of rioting and violence in Northern Ireland. She believes our police forces are out of control and need to be "reminded" who they serve.

However, who exactly do they serve?

From this article: The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : From Boston to Ferguson: Have We Reached a Tipping Point in the Police State?

“I thought I was losing my capacity to be shocked — but events in Missouri over just the last couple of hours have crossed a frightening line, one that makes me pray that this assault on fundamental American values is just the aberration of one rudderless Heartland community, and not the first symptoms of nation gone mad with high-tech weaponry to keep its own citizens in line.”—Journalist Will Bunch


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In terms of police powers, your country is way overboard. This sort of policing is absolutely why I believe your Second Amendment rights are under assault--they want a monopoly on your defense. However, half of your citizens want that right even further eroded and most of your citizens will not accept less government if it means interrupting the regular payments they get from Uncle Sam and the State. They were bought out with your money long ago.


----------



## margarok (Jan 16, 2009)

Sad, but true that entire communities of people have been further enslaved by government largess for the sole purpose of making them dependent upon political masters. 

The looting and rioting only highlight the problem as those of us sympathetic to the plight of the inner city black have a hard time championing them against police brutes when they are breaking windows and stealing televisions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't believe a lot of this is an accident. That is, I don't believe governments have instigated the incidents in Ferguson, but they continue to create conditions and promote policies that exacerbate the differences and disagreements between different classes and cultural groups. 

If anything, I believe the first black president has worsened race relations in your country by promoting class warfare and highlighting the differences, rather than the vast similarities, between all Americans.



margarok said:


> Sad, but true that entire communities of people have been further enslaved by government largess for the sole purpose of making them dependent upon political masters.
> 
> The looting and rioting only highlight the problem as those of us sympathetic to the plight of the inner city black have a hard time championing them against police brutes when they are breaking windows and stealing televisions.


----------



## margarok (Jan 16, 2009)

A very well done summary:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pr1oE34bIM[/ame]


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I've been following it with pretty much the same reaction whenever this happens: *Yup. USA.* Capt. Ron Johnson may want to consider a political run after this, if he manages to come out of it with his reputation unscathed. In general, here's hoping some heavy scrutiny falls upon that police department - predominantly white in a predominantly black community - with resulting changes to hiring policy (only a partial solution, but...).

And as for the Police Chief in Ferguson - he should step down, if not for the actions of his officers, both regular beat and the heavily militarize SWAT team he called in, then certainly for his attempts to slander the dead teenage's character to "justify" his officer's actions.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I don't believe a lot of this is an accident. That is, I don't believe governments have instigated the incidents in Ferguson, but they continue to create conditions and promote policies that exacerbate the differences and disagreements between different classes and cultural groups.
> 
> If anything, I believe the first black president has worsened race relations in your country by promoting class warfare and highlighting the differences, rather than the vast similarities, between all Americans.


 I agree with your statement. 

I haven't followed much of the case or situation in the US, as I am disgusted by the looting and level of disturbance that is occurring - unbelievable.. 
IMHO - they should of brought in the military immediately to enforce civil obedience, those who continued to loot receive the most highest level of punishment.

We had an issue in Toronto with a police officer shooting an unarmed civilian on a TTC streetcar.. - I don't recall - looting and mayhem.. This must be an American speciality - destroy everything in the path of justice, that helps no one.. Let the law handle the situation - as in Toronto the officer was charged, now being tried. I am in aw how Americans handle themselves - but I mostly blame the media, plus their civil leaders for creating such a rift in race relations. America is like the Animal Safari, at any point it will erupt in to a battle, that is not a civil society nor one that should preach democracy to the rest of the world.
just my 5 cents.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> IMHO - they should of brought in the military immediately to enforce civil obedience, those who continued to loot receive the most highest level of punishment.


The National Guard has been called in by the Governor. But there are still reports of SWAT teams behaving badly.

Also:





> Let me tell you a story that happens quite frequently on the streets of America.
> 
> A black police officer murders a white teenager for no reason, emptying almost a full pistol clip into the kid even as he stood with his hands up, and then leaves the body to lay in the street in a pool of blood for four hours. There is no call for an ambulance nor questioning of witnesses. The shooting isn't reported to headquarters.
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*John Oliver is gaining notice for his biting coverage of current events:*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oliver makes some incisive comments... he should cut down on his efforts at broad comedy.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> *John Oliver is gaining notice for his biting coverage of current events:*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A


i appreciate the slap stick humor John Oliver brings to this, nor is the time for it; but how would you treat a looting dangerous population? with cookies and milk? :roll eyes:

if the populous wants to be treated with respect one does not loot or set property a blaze etc.. maybe I am wrong ?!?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*16 Revealing Photos From the Ferguson Grand Jury Files*

(_Related:_ Grand jury decline to charge Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown)

_After St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced Monday that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted for killing Michael Brown, the county released a collection of documents from the grand jury proceedings. Among them were hundreds of photos from the investigation, depicting everything from the crime scene to Wilson at the hospital after the shooting. Here are just a few (all photos provided by the St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office):_


























(MotherJones)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What do you think of those photos, CM?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> What do you think of those photos, CM?


I think there are pretty solid reasons why many people are upset with the grand jury's decision. I'm surprised to see the distance between the officer's vehicle and where Brown's body fell. And the fact that the shot that ended his life was straight down into the top of his head... 

Personally, I think this deserved to go to trial, where the evidence could have been explored rather more publicly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> I think there are pretty solid reasons why many people are upset with the grand jury's decision. I'm surprised to see the distance between the officer's vehicle and where Brown's body fell. *And the fact that the shot that ended his life was straight down into the top of his head... *
> 
> Personally, I think this deserved to go to trial, where the evidence could have been explored rather more publicly.


Sorry CM I must have missed something. I don't see where the photo is that indicated that.

Aside from that I really don't see where the photos reveal anything that has not already been presented in testimony.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

For the photos presented in the link, I agree screature.



screature said:


> Sorry CM I must have missed something. I don't see where the photo is that indicated that.
> 
> Aside from that I really don't see where the photos reveal anything that has not already been presented in testimony.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Sorry CM I must have missed something. I don't see where the photo is that indicated that.
> 
> Aside from that I really don't see where the photos reveal anything that has not already been presented in testimony.


It's not in the photos - sorry, didn't intend to imply that it was. The photos show the scene, and speak to the distance between the officer and Brown's position at time of death.

The top-of-the-head-shot was revealed following one of the autopsies:



> The wounds to Brown's head also lend themselves to multiple versions of events.
> 
> One of the rounds that entered Brown's skull near his right eye came out of his right jaw, which means the bullet traveled down and to the right through the head. According to Kobilinsky, that suggests Brown's head was facing down.
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

From Theo Spark.

'Bout covers it for me...


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

FeXL said:


> From Theo Spark.
> 
> 'Bout covers it for me...


it was the father of Michael Brown that screamed on top of cars to burn the place down.. hmm.. will they arrest him for inciting violence and riots?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Beyond the community's reaction to the decision not to indict, what's your call on the shooting of Brown? Justified? All of the shots, including the one that took his life? No other option open to the police officer?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

macintosh doctor said:


> it was the father of Michael Brown that screamed on top of cars to burn the place down.. hmm.. will they arrest him for inciting violence and riots?


I'd like to see it happen but, in the face of the existing tension in the community, I'd be very surprised.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> Beyond the community's reaction to the decision not to indict, what's your call on the shooting of Brown? Justified? All of the shots, including the one that took his life? No other option open to the police officer?


Any idiot, of any size, male, female or otherwise, black, white or orange with purple polka dots, who charges an on duty, armed police officer of any size, who is male, female or otherwise, black, white or orange with purple polka dots, should not be surprised they get shot, perhaps even killed.

At some point people need to start taking responsibility for their actions (right from the get go, as far as I'm concerned). If he wouldn't have charged the police officer, he wouldn't have been shot. It's that simple. He brought it upon himself. Now his family & the rest of the up-in-arms community need to deal with that truth & get on with their lives, teaching their kids not to do the same stupid thing, instead of inciting racism & violence.

I won't even get into the, "Wul, he shoulda jes' popped a cap into his knee" discussion...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> At some point people need to start taking responsibility for their actions (right from the get go, as far as I'm concerned). If he wouldn't have charged the police officer, he wouldn't have been shot. It's that simple. He brought it upon himself.
> .....
> I won't even get into the, "Wul, he shoulda jes' popped a cap into his knee" discussion...


Depending on which witness you believe, Officer Wilson either waited patiently for Brown & his pals to walk past him before asking politely that they move onto the sidewalk, *or* he told them to "move onto the f---g sidewalk" and the reactions of the two parties led to the fatal outcome.

There's every possibility that Brown was the aggressor. There's also the possibility that the police officer was trying to throw around his authority. The history of blacks in the USA is full of incidents, historical and contemporary, of minorities being harassed and reacting to that lack of respect in ways both peaceful and violent.

But the Grand Jury's decision not to move this to trial removes any possibility of presenting the evidence publicly, testing it, and then reaching a verdict, and the open wound of Ferguson has less likelihood of healing (such as is possible).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> It's not in the photos - sorry, didn't intend to imply that it was. The photos show the scene, and speak to the distance between the officer and Brown's position at time of death.
> 
> The top-of-the-head-shot was revealed following one of the autopsies:
> 
> ...


So in fact the diagram seems to validate Officer Wilson's testimony of how the events unfolded.

One thing is certain, Officer Wilson shot Brown while Brown was facing him, possibly charging him as the officer's testimony states.

The other question that needs to be answered is why would Officer Wilson continue to fire if he didn't feel an imminent threat from Brown?

I mean just human nature and pain and all, I would think if Brown was surrendering he would have just fallen to the ground after being shot the first time.

The forensic evidence (the diagram that you posted) does not support the argument that he did that.

There is little doubt that racial profiling exists in the Missouri and Ferguson police force, but that should not cloud the judgment as to whether or not Officer Wilson was justified in shooting Mr. Brown.

IMO this should be viewed as an isolated incident and should be treated as such. The political grandstanding and riots that have followed are misplaced IMO. Let us just look at the evidence in this case and address that first. Which has been done, which is right and proper. 

Unfortunately some people don't believe in jurisprudence and they will do whatever they want, whether right or wrong... They really don't care, they are just going to believe what they want to believe based on past experience... That is called prejudice.

So as much as the rioters feel that Officer Wilson was acting out of prejudice, the rioters were acting out of prejudice as well.

The rioters do themselves a disservice in doing so, they just serve to continue the view that black American's are just violent criminals. 

Non-violent protests? Great. But riots, burning down buildings and businesses, setting police cars on fire, etc. is not the way to achieve change.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> Depending on which witness you believe, Officer Wilson either waited patiently for Brown & his pals to walk past him before asking politely that they move onto the sidewalk, *or* he told them to "move onto the f---g sidewalk" and the reactions of the two parties led to the fatal outcome.
> 
> ...
> 
> There's also the possibility that the police officer was trying to throw around his authority.


I ride a Harley. I'm a sizeable guy, have a big beard & look fairly intimidating, especially with my riding gear on. Despite the fact that I conduct myself in a gentlemanly fashion when I'm pulled over, nearly every encounter I have with a cop they are power tripping in some form or another. Some have sworn at me for no reason. 

That said, while I've often wanted to tell them to get stuffed, the thought of charging them with my head down like a linebacker has never even crossed my mind. Nor have I ever taunted them & told them that they don't have the guts to pull the trigger. Nor have I ever robbed anything, anybody. 

If a cop tells me to get up on the sidewalk instead of standing in the street, I do so. Pretty reasonable request, by all measures. Even if he did use the f-word.

Funny thing, even though many have acted like assholes towards me over the years, not only have I never been shot at by a cop, none of them have ever had occasion to even unholster their weapon.

Imagine that...

And, just to clarify, the actions of _one_ party, not two, led to the fatal outcome.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> *I ride a Harley. I'm a sizeable guy, have a big beard & look fairly intimidating, especially with my riding gear on. Despite the fact that I conduct myself in a gentlemanly fashion when I'm pulled over, nearly every encounter I have with a cop they are power tripping in some form or another. Some have sworn at me for no reason.
> 
> That said, while I've often wanted to tell them to get stuffed, the thought of charging them with my head down like a linebacker has never even crossed my mind. Nor have I ever taunted them & told them that they don't have the guts to pull the trigger. Nor have I ever robbed anything, anybody.
> 
> ...


I hear you and agree with you on all fronts.

On this I cannot agree, Officer Wilson shot Brown, two people were involved. Even if Officer Wilson was justified in shooting Brown he still did it and so it is not correct to say:



> ...the actions of _one_ party, not two, led to the fatal outcome.


For example, Officer Wilson rather than aiming at Brown's head could have aimed at his thighs (a much bigger target becuase there are two them) thereby halting his forward advance, but police aren't taught to do that that. They are taught if you feel your life is at stake and you have to fire your weapon use all of your clip.

My colleague's son went through police fundamentals training and said that is what they were trained to do, so I have no reason to doubt the truth of the statement and that it is typical of police training around the world... it only makes good common sense... kill or be killed.

That is what Kevin Vickers did in Parliament.

Based on his testimony, if true, Officer Wilson did have a choice but he wasn't trained to make such a choice.

I'm not saying he *should* have made such a choice, but it always takes two to tango and so I cannot agree that,



> ...the actions of _one_ party, not two, led to the fatal outcome.


just based on logic.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> On this I cannot agree, Officer Wilson shot Brown, two people were involved.


Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

In my view, there's action & reaction. Cause & effect. If there would have been no action, no cause, then there wold have been no reaction, no effect. Yes, there were two people involved in the outcome. However, the actions of one person initiated the event.

Brown brought this upon himself. He chose the wrong action & because of that, engaged another person, an armed police officer. If he had chosen otherwise, the officer likely would not have engaged him & he'd probably still be alive.

Cause, meet effect. No cause, no effect.

Same principle with Kevin Vickers. He did not initiate the conflict. He responded to it. No conflict, no response. No first action, no reaction.

A single person initiated each event.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.
> 
> *In my view, there's action & reaction. Cause & effect. If there would have been no action, no cause, then there wold have been no reaction, no effect.* Yes, there were two people involved in the outcome. *However, the actions of one person initiated the event.*
> 
> ...


Well that is always a grey area... who initiated what? What if Wilson didn't stop to try and stop Brown from walking in the street?

I don't think that is a crime to walk in the street of a residential neighbourhood. 

What if Wilson just kept driving on by and didn't stop to tell Brown to walk on the sidewalk?

Maybe none of this would have ever happened.

It isn't a "black and/vs. white" situation as much as the media and political interests would like to portray it as such. IMO.

My mention of Vickers was not meant in any way to equate the two incidents but merely to illustrate the nature of the training that police officers receive.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> A single person initiated each event.


THIS. Without any shred of doubt. So obvious it is impossible to miss.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> THIS. Without any shred of doubt. So obvious it is impossible to miss.


See my follow up post SINC. I was not trying to equate the two.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> See my follow up post SINC. I was not trying to equate the two.


Yes I understand that, but it does not change my opinion. Action and reaction. In both cases the initial action incited the reaction. Clear, pure and simple. No action, no death.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> *Yes I understand tha*t, but it does not change my opinion. Action and reaction. In both cases the initial action incited the reaction. Clear, pure and simple. No action, no death.


I'm not so sure base on what I said:



screature said:


> Well that is always a grey area... w*ho initiated what? What if Wilson didn't stop to try and stop Brown from walking in the street?
> 
> I don't think that is a crime to walk in the street of a residential neighbourhood.
> 
> ...


I think you will find if you read my posts I have tried to be balanced in my posting.

None of us here were there and have no idea what really went down. We are all just posting based on our personal opinions.

I can see how it could have gone down either way, but just to say again for clarity sake:



screature said:


> So in fact the diagram seems to validate Officer Wilson's testimony of how the events unfolded.
> 
> One thing is certain, Officer Wilson shot Brown while Brown was facing him, possibly charging him as the officer's testimony states.
> 
> ...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Neck shot and eye shot should hVe been more than enough to immobilize or even kill the perpetrator. Why the head shot into the top of the skull? Seems gratuitous and speaks to the mental state of the defendant. This case is not black and white, forgive the figure of speech. I wouldn't want this guy patrolling my neighborhood or anywhere my kids go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> View attachment 51466
> 
> 
> Neck shot and eye shot should hVe been more than enough to immobilize or even kill the perpetrator. Why the head shot into the top of the skull? Seems gratuitous and speaks to the mental state of the defendant. This case is not black and white, forgive the figure of speech. I wouldn't want this guy patrolling my neighborhood or anywhere my kids go.
> ...


Basic misunderstanding of how firearms work. Cop is trained to empty clip at target. First shots take target down and on the way down his head is exposed to direct line of fire on way down, thus the head shot from the final volley of slugs. No mystery, just what happened.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> I'm not so sure base on what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, your comments are your opinion as you state. Sorry, but I don't buy them at all. It takes provocation to have a police officer draw a gun in all but the most rare of cases.

You act (or appear to act) aggressive, you pay the price and sometimes with your very life.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

So I take it there were no witnesses to confirm the officer's version of the story. People lie, even under oath. Why is the cop's story so believable for white people and so unbelievable for black people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> So I take it there were no witnesses to confirm the officer's version of the story. People lie, even under oath. Why is the cop's story so believable for white people and so unbelievable for black people?


Over the course of the last day or two I ran across a story online that noted a female black witness corroborated his statement. I forget where it was but if I find it again I'll post a link.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> I don't think that is a crime to walk in the street of a residential neighbourhood.


Honestly, I don't care if it's a crime or not. 

What it boils down to for me is, was the request unreasonable? Plain & simple, no. The officer wasn't asking Brown to do anything outlandish, questionable, illegal, foolish, or physically difficult. At worst, it was an inconvenience. Why be a bonehead about it? 

So the cop may have come across as an asshole. So he may have sworn at Brown. So what? Safe to say that night wasn't the first for either issue and, if he had listened, wouldn't have been the last.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Well, this isn't the article I was speaking of but it does note corroboration of Wilson's testimony by black witnesses.

Evidence supports officer’s account of shooting in Ferguson



> Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Post’s sources said.


In addition, from the same article, the forensic evidence supports Wilson's testimony.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

This. If the man did nothing wrong, why resign?

http://m.mic.com/articles/105342/darren-wilson-will-resign-as-a-ferguson-cop-four-months-too-late


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> This. If the man did nothing wrong, why resign?
> 
> Darren Wilson Will Resign as a Ferguson Cop, Four Months Too Late - Mic
> 
> ...


Surely you can't be serious? Can you not even imagine the trauma of having to take someone's life? Would you too not decide thinking you chose the wrong career with having to live with killing another human being?

Good grief, he just wants out of the spotlight as he will carry the consequences of his duty as a cop for the rest of his life.

Is that so hard for you to fathom?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Would you want to return to duty in a city of maniacs, many of whom riot and burn down buildings because they think you are guilty? He's a sitting duck in Ferguson.



fjnmusic said:


> This. If the man did nothing wrong, why resign?
> 
> Darren Wilson Will Resign as a Ferguson Cop, Four Months Too Late - Mic


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Surely you can't be serious? Can you not even imagine the trauma of having to take someone's life? Would you too not decide thinking you chose the wrong career with having to live with killing another human being?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's a cop. Cops kill people sometimes. It happens. What kind of police force would we have if every cop quit the job after killing someone? Seriously, it sounds like some people are trying to argue both sides of the equation, but are unwilling to consider that maybe the cop just might have been in the wrong here. Maybe that's why he's resigning. He has certainly lost the trust of a large segment of the public.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Would you want to return to duty in a city of maniacs, many of whom riot and burn down buildings because they think you are guilty? He's a sitting duck in Ferguson.



Perception is all. He's sitting duck anywhere. Best thing he could do at this point is write a book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> He's a sitting duck in Ferguson.


Not only is he a sitting duck, a reporter from the NYT all but published his home address. Interestingly enough, since a blog returned the favour for her, she's been calling her local cops almost non-stop.

BREAKING: COPS: NYT Reporter Who Published #DarrenWilson Address Calling Cops Nonstop



> The New York Times journalist who published Darren Wilson’s home address wants police protection and has been calling the police nonstop, Gotnews.com has learned.


Good, old-fashioned karma.

No, I don't wish her any harm. Just interesting to see if she feels turnaround is fair play. Wonder if she has learned anything...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Maybe that's why he's resigning. He has certainly lost the trust of a large segment of the public.


He's white. He never had the trust of a large segment of the public...


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> This. If the man did nothing wrong, why resign?
> 
> Darren Wilson Will Resign as a Ferguson Cop, Four Months Too Late - Mic
> 
> ...


I agree with you, its happening as a result of Obama always speaking up against 
All law enforcement in the states with similar circumstances. 
When I was younger- my friends and I were caught walking down the road after dark
The police cautioned us and asked for our info plus told us don't j walk and down the middle of the road. Happy to say, after 30 yrs I am still here. 
I stand with the police in this matter. Plus blame CNN for their pro race reporting.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Nope, your comments are your opinion as you state. Sorry, but I don't buy them at all. It takes provocation to have a police officer draw a gun in all but the most rare of cases.
> 
> You act (or appear to act) aggressive, you pay the price and sometimes with your very life.
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree on this one.


I am not saying you are wrong or right, but I can see how it could have gone down either way. Seeing as how you were not there I don't understand how you can be so sure your opinion is correct.

My opinion is simply that I can see how it could have gone down either way.

Without further evidence I don't know how we could know *for sure.* And that, IMO is why the Grand Jury decided to not indict Wilson. There was just too much doubt to achieve the criminal law standard of judgment, which is "beyond a shadow of doubt". So there was no point in going forward with a prosecution and trial. 

Seeing as you have a definitive opinion I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Peace out.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Honestly, I don't care if it's a crime or not.
> 
> *What it boils down to for me is, was the request unreasonable?* Plain & simple, no. The officer wasn't asking Brown to do anything outlandish, questionable, illegal, foolish, or physically difficult. At worst, it was an inconvenience. Why be a bonehead about it?
> 
> So the cop may have come across as an asshole. So he may have sworn at Brown. So what? Safe to say that night wasn't the first for either issue and, if he had listened, wouldn't have been the last.


It may be in Missouri and Ferguson where there is a history of white police officers abusing their power over black civilians.

What if Brown was white? What if Wilson was black?

Would there have been a different outcome?

We cannot know for sure but I think there may have been.

There is a historical tension between white cops and black civilians in Missouri and Ferguson and I don't think that should be discounted as to the psychology of both Brown and Wilson... Once again that is part of why I could see it going down either way.


----------



## margarok (Jan 16, 2009)

Okay, I am posting a link to a very controversial opinion that was posted on a blog I follow. I do not agree with the author's claim that black intelligence is lower than other races. I think that the statement is racist on its face and that results of IQ tests that support his claim are largely due to inequalities in education and/or cultural issues that discourage young black students from pursuing educational opportunity. 

However, the article is a good read, if for no other reason than to contemplate what those reasons might be... that prevent young black children from learning at the same rate as other races. 

What do you EhMacers think?

Fred On Everything


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

margarok said:


> However, the article is a good read, if for no other reason than to contemplate what those reasons might be... that prevent young black children from learning at the same rate as other races.
> 
> What do you EhMacers think?


I'm sorry to have wasted my time reading that ****e.

Fred needs to spend more time on the beaches of Puerto Vallarta sipping tequila and less time in front of a keyboard.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> I am not saying you are wrong or right, but I can see how it could have gone down either way. Seeing as how you were not there I don't understand how you can be so sure your opinion is correct.
> 
> My opinion is simply that I can see how it could have gone down either way.
> 
> ...


The Grand Jury does not evaluate guilt or innocence. So the "Beyond a shadow of doubt" does not apply. They evaluate the evidence to kind of give the prosecutor yes/no on whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. They do not need to have a unanimous decision either. 2/3 or 3/4 depending on the state. Most states do not use them. 

What is really of note is that the prosecutor does not need a decision to proceed to trial. And most importantly the proceedings are normally sealed. Yet in Ferguson they chose to share them....... after waiting 2 months for it to conclude.


----------



## margarok (Jan 16, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> I'm sorry to have wasted my time reading that ****e.
> 
> Fred needs to spend more time on the beaches of Puerto Vallarta sipping tequila and less time in front of a keyboard.


That made me laugh.

I'm sitting in a log home about 100 miles from Ferguson. My upper middle class cousins own three rental homes there, one of which is damaged beyond repair, probably. They don't feel safe driving in to look at it right now.

I am glad we are in the boonies.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

smashedbanana said:


> What is really of note is that the prosecutor does not need a decision to proceed to trial. And most importantly the proceedings are normally sealed. Yet in Ferguson they chose to share them....... after waiting 2 months for it to conclude.


Not sure I understand what your take is. What do you make of that?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Well, this isn't the article I was speaking of but it does note corroboration of Wilson's testimony by black witnesses.
> 
> Evidence supports officer’s account of shooting in Ferguson
> 
> ...


That should be the end of the discussion - multiple eye witness testimony and forensic evidence match.

Reminds me of the supposed testimony posted in the very first post of this thread:


> Brown made it past the third car. Then, “blam!” the officer took his second shot, striking Brown in the back. At that point, Johnson says Brown stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”


Johnson, who seemed to be the closest witness, is lying through his teeth - forensic evidence confirmed that Brown was never shot in the back.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Not sure I understand what your take is. What do you make of that?


I think it speaks the real issue in Ferguson. How it was handled.

From what I have read I believe the Officer was in the right, and had little choice in how to react. Brown was under some chemical influence and/or had no respect for authority.

Now the Police chief, the prosecutors office, the mayor, and the whole gamut ...now they handled everything else poorly. They delayed and stumbled. While they did the national news outlets constantly referred to a "shooting of a unarmed black man by a white officer".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> *The Grand Jury does not evaluate guilt or innocence. *So the "Beyond a shadow of doubt" does not apply. *They evaluate the evidence to kind of give the prosecutor yes/no on whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. *They do not need to have a unanimous decision either. 2/3 or 3/4 depending on the state. Most states do not use them.
> 
> What is really of note is that the prosecutor does not need a decision to proceed to trial. And most importantly the proceedings are normally sealed. Yet in Ferguson they chose to share them....... after waiting 2 months for it to conclude.


Correct.

Exactly and part of that evaluation is to determine whether or not there is a possibility of conviction based on the evidence. So the criminal requirement for a conviction, "Beyond a shadow of doubt", does apply in their recommendation as to whether to prosecute or not. 

A Grand Jury would not be doing its job if they found that there was a lack of evidence to get a conviction i.e., "Beyond a shadow of doubt" and still recommended that the case go to trial. That is part of their job, to avoid a very costly trial, if there is not enough evidence to proceed to trial and an eventual conviction.

Which was the content of my post that you commented on. The Grand Jury found that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trail and obtain a conviction, i.e. there was a shadow of doubt.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

krs said:


> That should be the end of the discussion - multiple eye witness testimony and forensic evidence match.


Agreed.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

smashedbanana said:


> I think it speaks the real issue in Ferguson. How it was handled.


Agreed. Many people, from Obama all the way down, were fomenting racism from the start.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Fortunately, not everyone has drunk the kool-aid.

Guard Encounters Armed Blacks with Guns in Ferguson — Cooperation Ensues



> Some National Guardsmen patrolling the wreckage of Ferguson, Missouri came on a remarkable, and alarming, sight: black men with guns, their leader a 6’8″ giant cradling an AR-15. They stood in the forecourt of a Conoco gas station, a building that rose, unmolested, like a meth addict’s last solitary tooth in a micro-Hiroshima landscape of boarded-up, or, worse, looted and burned, small businesses.


More:



> The Guard soldiers demanded that the men put their guns down, and were actually starting to cuff them, when the owner of the station emerged. *Doug Merello is a second-generation owner of the station, and even though he’s white, he and his shop’s neighbors, just about all black, had always been friendly.* They were his customers, and the neighbors were where he turned for his workers, too.


M'bold.

No sarcasm: nice to read about.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

On the quality of the media.

CNN is lying when they say Ferguson protests were ‘peaceful’



> It has been remarkable to watch the last few days as America’s self-styled “most trusted news network” has sent out teams of reporters to various areas of Ferguson, Missouri, ostensibly to cover the protests there. While their cameramen are watching cars on fire and stores being looted, the reporters ramble on about how “most people here” are “peaceful protesters.”


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

To the business owners in Ferguson:

Do not rebuild in Ferguson



> From a kid who survived the Hough Riots in Cleveland nearly a half century ago, some unsolicited advice to the business owners in Ferguson, Missouri: Do not bother rebuilding. Your customers do not want you. They tore up your stores -- twice. And after one of them robbed a store. These are not protests. They are pogroms aimed at the middle class. Take the insurance money and run.
> 
> Police officers, too, should leave. Why risk a criminal trial or worse for doing your job?
> 
> Homeowners, too. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic -- it does not matter. You are middle class. They do not want you. Leave.


Interesting take.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> I think it speaks the real issue in Ferguson. How it was handled.
> 
> From what I have read I believe the Officer was in the right, and had little choice in how to react. Brown was under some chemical influence and/or had no respect for authority.
> 
> Now the Police chief, the prosecutors office, the mayor, and the whole gamut ...now they handled everything else poorly. They delayed and stumbled. *While they did the national news outlets constantly referred to a "shooting of a unarmed black man by a white officer".*


IMO because of "media spin" and politics. It is in the media's interests to keep a story going for as long as they can... it helps their bottom line and the longer they can keep political foes quarrelling the better it is for them. It makes for headlines which sell.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> Correct.
> 
> Exactly and part of that evaluation is to determine whether or not there is a possibility of conviction based on the evidence. So the criminal requirement for a conviction, "Beyond a shadow of doubt", does apply in their recommendation as to whether to prosecute or not.
> 
> ...


I think you are missing my point.

For the record, I am not disagreeing with anything you have said here.

But  you are using the term "shadow of a doubt" or more completely "beyond a shadow of a doubt" which is a legal term that is strictly used when a verdict is considered for guilt or innocence in a trial. The Grand Jury is not a trial, and it votes on the weight of the evidence to proceed to trial.

Again, not disagreeing with you, you just are using a term that could be misleading. 

Something like the Grand Jury "did not find that the prosecutors met the burden of evidence required to proceed" might be more accurate.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> *I think you are missing my point.*
> 
> For the record, I am not disagreeing with anything you have said here.
> 
> ...


I am not. 

The Grand Jury does not rule on guilt or innocence, I know that. 

All they do is recommend to the prosecution if there is enough evidence to result in the *likelihood *of obtaining a guilty verdict which in criminal law requires "beyond a shadow of doubt". So yes "beyond a shadow of doubt" is what they take into consideration when making the recommendation to the prosecution whether to prosecute or not.

That is exactly the term I have been using... check the record.

All I am saying is that the condition for criminal conviction must meet the standard of "beyond a shadow of doubt" and yes that is and must be considered when a Grand Jury makes its recommendation.

They do not rule on "beyond a shadow of doubt", but they make their recommendation to prosecute or not on based on the evidence and if it could result in a conviction which is based on the premise of "beyond a shadow of doubt". So because the GJ recommended not to prosecute they obviously felt there was a "shadow of doubt".

So I think it is you that does not understand what I am saying.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you sure the criminal requirement for a conviction is "beyond a shadow of doubt"? Sounds too metaphorical to be a legal term. I always thought it was "beyond a reasonable doubt."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Are you sure the criminal requirement for a conviction is "beyond a shadow of doubt"? Sounds too metaphorical to be a legal term. I always thought it was "beyond a reasonable doubt."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Look it up. I did.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

So did I. The term you use is more of an inexact informal substitute for the actual term. It is easier to define "reasonable" than "shadow of a doubt."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> I am not.
> 
> The Grand Jury does not rule on guilt or innocence, I know that.
> 
> All they do is recommend to the prosecution if there is enough evidence to result in the *likelihood *of obtaining a guilty verdict which in criminal law requires "beyond a shadow of doubt".....


OMG screature OMG

I was agreeing with you on your point and simply saying your terminology is misleading. But wow you have to go down swinging and ignoring my point entirely.

Keep sailing the ship towards the rock buddy, I'm getting off and swimming.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> So did I. The term you use is more of an inexact informal substitute for the actual term. It is easier to define "reasonable" than "shadow of a doubt."


Agreed

Reasonable doubt is more instructional
Beyond a shadow of a doubt is apparently more far reaching, but more subjective


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> So did I. The term you use is more of an inexact informal substitute for the actual term. It is easier to define "reasonable" than "shadow of a doubt."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Mea Culpa.

It appears my (re)search was not complete.

You are correct in terms of terminology. But it does not affect the validity of the content of my posts IMO.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Mea Culpa.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I only bring it up because I've taught the play 12 Angry Men a few times and the concept of "reasonable doubt" was an important theme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> *OMG screature OMG*
> 
> I was agreeing with you on your point and simply saying your terminology is misleading. But wow you have to go down swinging and ignoring my point entirely.
> 
> Keep sailing the ship towards the rock buddy, I'm getting off and swimming.


I apologize smashedbanana.

My misuse of nomenclature led to our quarrel and for that I once again apologize, but in general, I think we are on the same page.

Peace out.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Truth, Lies, and Michael Brown



> Michael Brown’s death was Michael Brown’s fault.


Bingo!

Closing paragraph:



> Instead of telling the truth about Ferguson, our “leaders” have been pandering to the lawlessness giving the liars just what they were after, and now those lies have taken root all across the country. Because others are willing to block traffic, shut down malls, and hold their hands in the air on a nationally televised football game, the lies continue to spread. Because the lies continue to spread, the divisions continue to grow doing harm to our country that will take years to repair. Lies fall apart though, when they are confronted by the truth. The liars are not timid in telling their lies; we cannot be timid in responding with the truth.


Article is a good read.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

macintosh doctor said:


> it was the father of Michael Brown that screamed on top of cars to burn the place down.. hmm.. will they arrest him for inciting violence and riots?


Making noises in that direction. Like I noted earlier, I'll be surprised (but pleasantly so).

Ferguson Police Chief: 'Lot of Discussion' On Charging Brown's Stepdad



> Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson reported that his department was "pursuing" comments made by Michael Brown's stepfather and that "there's a lot of discussion" about charging the stepfather with inciting a riot for screaming "burn this b*tch down" after the grand jury's decision was announced on Monday's "Hannity" on the Fox News Channel.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

NBA Star Charles Barkley Criticizes Media Coverage of Ferguson | Media Research Center



> Outspoken Former NBA Star Charles Barkley called out the media for “jumping to conclusions in the Michael Brown shooting, because the media love race stories.” Barkley made these comments on Tuesday in a radio interview with Mike Missanelli on 97.5 The Fanatic in Philadelphia,
> 
> When asked about the Ferguson decision, and why “Black America” doesn’t trust the ruling, Barkley said that “the true story came out from the grand jury testimony," adding that he was made aware of "key forensic evidence, and several black witnesses that supported Officer Darren Wilson’s story for the first time Monday Night. I can’t believe anything I hear on television anymore. And, that’s why I don’t like talking about race issues with the media anymore, because they (the media) love this stuff, and lead people to jump to conclusions. The media shouldn’t do that. They never do that when black people kill each other”
> 
> Barkley also praised the police saying “we have to be really careful with the cops, because if it wasn’t for the cops we would be living in the Wild, Wild West in our neighborhoods. We can’t pick out certain incidentals that don’t go our way and act like the cops are all bad. Do you know how bad some of these neighborhoods would be without the cops?”


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

A bit late to the discussion I know but here are my two cents. First, none of us live in that town and we do not know what the relations of the town's people and the police were like .... We can surmise but we don't live there.

Second pent up hate is an awfully difficult thing to defuse ..... There are non believers even when confronted with reasonable doubt ..... Third, it is not what has gone on in the past that is at issue now, you will never get agreement as the truth is often seen through jaundiced eyes. It is how do they change the culture going forward .... And without further rage, rioting in the pursuit of justice, and destroying the town entirely and future generations.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

My opinion of Mr. Barkley just went up a significant notch...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> A bit late to the discussion I know but here are my two cents. First, none of us live in that town and we do not know what the relations of the town's people and the police were like .... We can surmise but we don't live there.
> 
> Second pent up hate is an awfully difficult thing to defuse ..... There are non believers even when confronted with reasonable doubt ..... Third, it is not what has gone on in the past that is at issue now, you will never get agreement as the truth is often seen through jaundiced eyes. It is how do they change the culture going forward .... And without further rage, rioting in the pursuit of justice, and destroying the town entirely and future generations.


Agreed Rps... there is much work to be done on all sides.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Now, there's a surprise.

Ferguson Rent-A-Mobs Exposed



> ACORN’s successor group in Missouri has been paying protesters $5,000 a month to generate civil unrest in Ferguson, the troubled St. Louis suburb where black youth Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer last August.
> 
> We know this because some of the protesters haven’t been paid and, now, they are demanding what they were promised. They held a sit-in at the offices of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) and posted a demand letter online.


OK, not really...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Any idiot, of any size, male, female or otherwise, black, white or orange with purple polka dots, who charges an on duty, armed police officer of any size, who is male, female or otherwise, black, white or orange with purple polka dots, should not be surprised they get shot, perhaps even killed.
> 
> At some point people need to start taking responsibility for their actions (right from the get go, as far as I'm concerned). If he wouldn't have charged the police officer, he wouldn't have been shot. It's that simple. He brought it upon himself.


*Ummmm..... nope.*

*Everything You Think You Know About the Death of Mike Brown Is Wrong, and the Man Who Killed Him Admits It*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

For those interested, here is the original document:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...ficer-darren-wilsons-list-of-admissions/2371/


----------

