St Louis shooting: protesters clash with police at scene of teenager's death

Except there were riots prior to the GJ announcement(weeks ahead in fact) and they were already protesting on the Media leaks about the GJ's(correct) decision. The Prosecutor would never want to go into that kind of case, with that flimsy type of evidence. It wouldn't have lasted a week into trial.

Because of how weak the case was, had it gone to trial, we most definitely would have riots. Perhaps worse riots in a sense, since they'd feel "Justice was robbed from them". The point is, our Founders wanted to separate politics from outside influences for a VERY good reason.

Liberals, who thought they knew it all are experiencing in real-time what history should've taught them.

 

Maybe it's time that, despite what liberals and progressives keep pounding into their heads, black are not above the law. We know progressives think of them as 2nd class citizens, but most people hold them to the same standards as everyone else. Meaning, if you break laws, assault cops, rob people, etc, etc, etc, you will be dealt with accordingly. This thug thought he could pull a gun on a cop and nothing would happen. He was wrong. Brown thought he could assault a cop and nothing would happen. He was wrong. Etc, Etc, Etc. Maybe someone with half a brain should tell these people they are living in a society, and need to conduct themselves like law abiding citizens.

 

Gunning down children with toys "just in case" is poor police work. VERY VERY poor. No wonder that cop got canned from his last job.

It's not clear whether the caller was deliberately making stuff up, or whether he was expressing what he feared was most likely. Like the cops, the caller was white.

There was no warning. The guy never saw the cops.

I don't know what you're referring to here. The caller was not charged with anything. I don't know if the caller was ever even identified except as a name and a voice.

Calm down. People here have blessed these cops for all these reasons. Some (like you) have decided the cops were justified in one case, but not in others. The point I've been trying to make here is that no cop was indicted in any of these cases. Not one. I'm making the judgment call that in each case, SOME indictment was justified. The impression that The Man controls The System and is covering his butt is the problem here. When armed cops kill unarmed people, SOME indictment is really mandatory. Even if a trial is sure to come back not guilty.

 

I agree with your assessment, since what you say is pure crap. When an armed person shoots and kills an unarmed person, an indictment is pretty much mandatory. At trial, it's quite possible that a not guilty verdict will be returned routinely. But the shooting is all the evidence required. In each of these cases, if the shooter had NOT been a cop, an indictment is a slam dunk guarantee.

 

District Attorneys pretty much guide the grand jury process. It's a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor DA who can't get an indictment when an armed man shoots an unarmed man.

But I understand that your position is that no cop can ever do anything wrong, and you're stick with it no matter what. And when these killings keep happening, rather than realize that cops being above the law are part of the problem, you instead demonize the victims. Not real honest, but logically required.

 

I think the Brown case was borderline, and an indictment would have been more politically motivated than factually correct. In the Garner, Crawford, Rice and a couple of other cases, lack of any indictment is an obvious coverup.

Nonetheless, consider the Brown case. The DA's father had been a cop, and so had his grandfather. The DA has been working hand in glove with the police for many years - that's the nature of the job. The DA's wife has worked for the police department for 20 years. And sure enough, the DA can't bring an indictment. Are you seriously arguing that no politics was involved here? That there was nothing but pure objectivity?

I've recommended that, given the extreme difficulty of bringing an indictment even when the victim was unarmed, non-threatening, and killed on video everyone watches!!1!, we are seeing an inappropriate use of the grand jury. The GJ system just isn't set up for the establishment (the police, the DA, local politicians) to indict itself. We need some sort of outside and hopefully more objective assessment, without such a powerful vested interest. Self-investigations never seem to find anything wrong. Not a coincidence.

 

And children think they can play in the park without being shot to death. And young men think they can shop at WalMart without being shot to death. And people think they can walk up the stairs to their apartments without being shot to death. And they can, unless they are, you know, playing or shopping or walking while black.

Nobody should be above the law. Not if they are black, not if they are police.

 

It doesn't matter what a Grand Jury says; it doesn't matter what a Jury of Peers says; it doesn't matter what the evidence proves.

Those who are looking under every stone for racism will make it up if they can't find it.

 

So you DO think a grand jury is a trial, and that they can return not guilty findings? Or are you pretending that?

I'm going to assume you sincerely fear that if the accused is permitted representation at the grand jury, and actually gets to cross examine the witnesses, that this will be a miscarriage of justice? Or would that only be true if it's a cop who did the killing?

The grand jury is, in theory (and in practice if the accused is not a cop) not supposed to consider all the evidence and return guilty or not guilty. They are supposed to decide whether a trial is justified. Gee, here's a white guy with a gun. Gee, here's a dead black guy with no gun. Gee, here are plenty of witnesses that the guy with the gun shot the guy without the gun. Sorry, WE can't see ANY possibility that anything wrong happened here. No case. Let's all go home.

- - - Updated - - -

And when they CAN find it? What do YOU do, when you look at the statistics? Dismiss them as uncongenial, and claim those who read them are making them up? You seem to have mastered the art of squeezing your eyes shut, jamming your fingers in your ears, and shouting I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG HERE!!!

 

The forensic evidence was clear. There was no charge that would stand. The DA knew this. The Grand Jury knew this.

Dont assign positions to me out of nothing but your bias and then expect me to defend said position. Clue. You are very far off in your "understanding" of me.

 

Again with your assumptions. The Grand Jury WAS provided with the forensic evidence and WAS provided with the Witness testimony.

How about you stop right now. Your constant assuming and projections leave no room for respectful debate.,

 

Brown was a thug and deserved his fate, so did the idiot who pulled a gun on the cop.

The Wilson incident and ones like it are the problem here, if something was or is done about that case it would be much easier to be with law enforcement as a whole. Many cases like the toy gun however, are just absolute tragedies, that officer obviously didn't leave the house hoping to kill a kid...

However, cases like Garner and Kelly Thomas are absolutely horrific and show that some cops should not only be fired but thrown in jail for murder.

The biggest problem and reason for why this movement will fail, if it hasn't already, is the idiots who turned it into a race war. They should be holding sings up with Kelly Thomas and Eric Garner side by side.

Instead you get the race baiters and because of it I personally refuse to tie myself to this movement.

 

Yes it does.
No it blames cops who dare defend themselves against ferals.
No it blames DA's who don't give in to mob rule.
No it blames people for telling the truth, it also rewards people who lie under oath with government jobs.
Yes it does in fact in employs people who tell these enraged ignorant Negros to take what they want and that "no justice no peace" blah blah blah, Al Sharpton.

Cause: Feral goes out and commits crime.
Effect: Feral is stopped by police.

Cause: Feral attacks police.
Effect: Feral is shot by police.

Maybe the narrative should be this this:

HEY YOU FERAL DEGENERATE THUG, IF YOU BECOME A CRIMINAL YOU WILL LIKELY MEET A CRIMINALS FATE.

 

I'll acknowledge that other cases should've went to trial. The prosecutor totally screwed up the NY Case it looks like, and didn't follow procedures which is why I hate how politicized and how media-oriented these cases have become. Due to the political environment, it's actually had the opposite effect of not getting the kind of justice those who may have acted maliciously deserved. Indeed, we're returning to the days of the Salem Witch hunts.

Is that the kind of justice system we want to pursue in this country? We'd go from a Prosecution bias to a guilty until proven innocent bias, a proven way of downfall from every world power that ever was. But let's briefly look over the fact why the Brown case would've been VERY hard to prosecute.

-There were two crucial factoids about the case that needed to be disproven(or at least in doubt) to even begin to charge Officer Wilson with anything: A: Whether or not Brown touched his weapon and B: Whether or not Brown was charging him.

However, A was undoubtedly proven. Brown suffered injuries consistent from short-range fire, and there was his DNA on the Officer's gun. Since A can't be challenged, at this point Brown's a felon no matter what people thought his "gentle" past was. However, if there wasn't a persistent threat then indeed he could've brought him into custody, right?

Unfortunately, B was proven(along with every media-oriented theory disproven.) When all of the autopsys proved that he couldn't have been gunned down from the back and that in fact, he was charging towards Officer Wilson. If Brown really was surrendering, standard protocol would've had Officer Wilson asking Brown to wait(gun probably still drawn) until he's close enough to perform the arrest.

With A and B proven, I cannot even so much as tact manslaughter on him, to do so would invalidate self-defense for every individual in America. Like: "If someone shows malicious and deadly intent towards you, you have to respond with less force or it's manslaughter?' When do we give criminals rights? Self-Defense is very specific and very fair. Had I tabbed Wilson for Manslaughter, I'm lowering the bar for self-defense rights.

Would it be optimal if the GJ is independent from the police? Typically, they are as all Juries are made up of civilians. However, a human is a human however flawed.(Do we agree with this philosophical premise?) If so, then we need a kind of "review board" or a jury above a jury in the case of trials. A jury made up of experts and former judges of law enforcement.(Ideally, a former Federal judge).

The problem with this proposal of mine of course, is that it'd encumber the process and slow it down considerably(and it's already too slow for my liking. As if a trial is some kind of carnival that requires month-long set-up. No, just sit your asses down in the court room and conduct the damn trial). But nothing's ever perfect.

You're right, the GJ normally isn't allowed to run a trial, but the GJ has to decide whether or not it can be brought to trial. Bringing this to trial would've only prolonged the pain of the Brown family. Unlike the Zimmerman case, there's not a lot of dubious points. The people Brown were connected with, their actions. It would've been one dirty trial with one obvious conclusion: Not guilty.

 

Do you personally know anyone who has ever been on a grand jury?

 

Either the 911 call exists or it doesn't. I don't know one way or the other. But the claim was made that there was a 911 call. So it should be easy to produce it. Put the 911 call through the goal posts and score a field goal.

 

Suggesting one might exist is not claiming one does you need to slow down and actually read what people post.

 

What part of this forensic evidence shows Officer Wilson was attacked.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/justice/gallery/darren-wilson/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

 

What do we want ? DEAD DEMOCRATS !
When do we want them ? NOW !

 

We have been over this so many times now i have no interest in a dragged out conversation with you yet again where you ignore anything that doesnt fit your agenda. If you have something to comment about Flints comments or mine then go ahead.

 

There was none, ok.

 

I am already dealing with one person who does nothing but assign positions to people and then expect them to defend them. I dont need you joining in as well. Again if you want to discuss the topic fine. If you want to jump in and start the same crap i have no interest.

 

Then why can't those that repeat this narrative ever present an instance that reflects it? If what you say is the case then you should be able to present instances that show it. Instead your ilk has to resort to stretching the truth to outright telling lies. Stop with the nonsense already.

 

Another dead thug and no one will go to prison. Let me do the math here for those who obviously don't get it: Those in our society that abide by the law and live peacefully can have a good life. Those who don't will be removed from society. Skin color has nothing to do with it.

 

I hate to break it to you but you are wrong. A shooting does not and should not mean an automatic indictment. Perhaps one day we will have that ideal existence where the sun shines everyday and everyone has a unicorn but until then we have to deal with reality. Truth is not every case is cut and dry so the facts of it need to be looked at. The grand jury system is not perfect but it is as good as we can make possible. I know it throws a monkey wrench in the social engineering plans of liberals but this isn't a communist country. Justice is justice and not always pretty. Sorry if it conflicts with your vision of a perfect world.