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

Your neighborhood sounds like a rough place. I am glad the rest of the country isn't that jacked up. Maybe if you can bypass the grand jury system so liberals can have these racial hoax show trials your neighborhood will change. Sorry but the rest of us want the grand jury system to throw out these cases that are obvious and avoid wasting taxpayer money so liberals can have a show trial circus where they can stand around with signs that repeat the same nonsense.

 

Question: When is a 12 year old boy playing in the park a feral degenerate thug?
Answser: When he's black and the person assigning the label is white.

All this is so illustrative to me. Sure, there are feral degenerate thugs out there. There are also sadistic and prejudiced policemen. But it's simply stupid to say that all citizens are thugs or all police are violent bigots because some of them are. And it's stupid to say that all police killings are justified because most of them are. Yeah, the cop who gunned down the boy in the park was "daring to defend himself."

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

 

Kid reached for a weapon. Think. Put the race card away.

- - - Updated - - -

And libruls are race pimps who hug black thugs.

- - - Updated - - -

Go read the autopsy and get back to us. Then you have the witnesses that recanted their 'hands up, don;t shoot' lies.

 

It's always amusing how many people with ZERO understanding of the justice system grab a snippet some moronic internet or TV person uttered and run with it. Anyone who had been paying the slightest bit of attention to the Brown story would know the GJ heard evidence and witnesses. Much ado was made of this because it's unusual. But nooooooooo, they plugged their ears and continue to make fools of themselves.

 

I agree with all you say here, but I wonder if you have missed the forest for the trees. If we look at the sheer violence and duration of the community protest (and looting, and riots) after the "no indictment" decision, it would seem to be entirely irrational given the detailed fact situation. Your points A and B are correct. Brown certainly was asking for trouble, if perhaps not death. The evidence is quite strong that he represented a serious danger to Wilson. So we have to decide whether (1) most of the citizens of Ferguson are subhuman violent morons who just wanted an excuse to loot places (and yes, people here have actually been saying this), or (2) there was a pent-up resentment of the (all white) police force treatment of a predominantly black community, and the explosion here wasn't entirely to a single instance, but rather to what the people saw as the last straw.

And the long-standing mutual distrust between the police and the citizens, the growing resentments, the failure to communicate, weren't going to be cured by an indictment followed by the inevitable not guilty verdict. Similarly, the cases of Garner and Rice and Crawford and others probably shouldn't be seen as isolated aberrations, whose individual merits should be considered in a vacuum. The community sees all these cases as poster children for a broad underlying problem. I also do not think that bringing indictments and even convictions in these cases is much of a step in preventing more of the same.

Just read some of the reactions on this thread. The entire black community is described as feral thugs, and the police are viewed as heroes for daring to go shoot unarmed members of that community. This is an EXTREME level of contempt, prejudice on steroids. On the part of both the police and the citizens. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that it will take a long time if everyone makes an effort, and it will only get worse if the "feral black thugs/white police bigots" caricatures continue as they are.

 

A grand jury is not supposed to return a "not guilty" verdict, after hearing witnesses. They are supposed to decide whether enough evidence of wrongdoing exists to justify a trial. The purpose of a grand jury is to prevent the railroading of people who are clearly not involved. And this is important, because it's been all too common throughout history that some terrible crime is committed, and the community wants SOMEONE to pay for it. They often pick some poor person, often black, beat a confession out of him, and punish him. Grand juries are intended to prevent that sort of thing.

In the Brown case, there was plenty of evidence that Wilson shot Brown. Was the shooting justified? THAT is what a trial determines - whether it was justified. The grand jury's job is to decide if Wilson and Brown were actually the people involved, and whether there is some important dispute about the details.

In an actual trial, there are lawyers for both sides, there are different rules of evidence, there is cross examination, the procedings aren't being run by the prosecutor, etc. The Brown grand jury was simply mishandled. But those who believe the police can do no wrong seem to have ZERO understanding of the system. As usual.

 

What you say is truer than you seem to realize. In shooting cases, grand juries return indictments against everyone BUT policemen nearly all the time (convictions at trial are less common). Policemen, almost never. This is the real world. Why does this happen? One key reason is, the grand jury is run by the prosecutor, and no prosecutor can possibly do his job without the active cooperation of the police. So bringing an indictment against a policement is shooting himself in the feet with both barrels.

I suggest this is a flaw in the grand jury system, and not a flaw that's difficult to correct. When a member of the establishment (police department, DA department, local politician) is the suspect, it seems to be a mistake to have that suspect's teammates decide if he should be tried. In such cases (it's pretty clear which ones they are), someone more independent should be running the show.

 

Because you didn't like the outcome. Understood.

 

No kidding!

Jeez!

Good God!

- - - Updated - - -

And it's why people with working brains pay ZERO attention to them.

 

Kid did not HAVE a weapon. THINK.

Ah, there's that race card. I guess you don't have to put it away. Blacks are thugs, we KNOW this, it's not like we're making a judgment call. They are objectively thugs. Just LOOK at them.

However, I do appreciate people like you so clearly illustrating the hate problem. Blacks are thugs, libruls are beneath contempt, cops can do no wrong, thinking about what's actually happening is too hard, when you have slogans and caricatures. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and they is us." Look at this next post, where anyone who disagrees with pure unadulterated bigotry is said to have ZERO brains. No hatred there, no sirree!

- - - Updated - - -

How would you know?

 

I disagree. The narrative WAS/IS about an "unarmed gentle giant" who took his last breath because he decided to confront a police officer instead of full compliance. NOT because cops fail to convict their own.

 

No, because it was mishandled. Even if they had brought an indictment, it would STILL have been mishandled.

 

Yes he did even though it turned out to be a toy. 20/20 hindsight. How librul.

No race card. Black thugs exist whether you like it or not. And I didn't say blacks were thugs lefty, I said there are black thugs. But you have to twist my words in order to make your lie work. You don't think there are any black thugs. You think they are poor misunderstood little tykes that had a bad upbringing. C'mon up here to Chicago so you can embrace some of these little darlins'.

 

Confronting a police officer was a stupid thing to do. Maybe it shouldn't have been a fatal thing to do, but in this case it was fatally stupid. Cops do NOT convict their own, however.

 

Your useless opinion based on your bias.

 

Yes, REAL MEN shoot kids first, and THEN find out that they were playing with a toy in the park. We understand.

There are certainly black thugs, just as surely as there are bigoted policemen. Both are problems. When bigoted policemen confront black thugs, we tend to have violent events. Is one side always at fault, or is the situation a bit more complex?

 

Kids carry guns. Look it up.

Who's the bigoted cop you'e referring to?

 

There's some of them who back the Whitesboro Baptists. I've seen their droppings...er...postings...right on here.

 

Your objective opinion because you have no bias at all, right?

What we're seeing here is actually quite fascinating. No wonder there's such a religious fear of science in the US. When foregone conclusions collide with the evidence, the evidence always loses. Reality is, you know, biased.

 

Along with the white guilting libruls who cry over dead thugs.

 

Quite a few. Places like this tend to attract polarized opposites. There seems to be quite a crowd of people who hate people who don't hate what they hate.

- - - Updated - - -

And there's one of them right now. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

I go by whatever ANY GJ comes down with. Why? Because absent any illegality on it's part, we are governed by laws. Suck it up man! Geez

 

But surely a good policeman knows better than to open fire just in case, and then later determine that he gunned down an unarmed child. In the Kalamazoo case, where the genuinely armed man was very angry, dangerous, and WHITE, the police spent 40 minutes talking him down. Nobody was arrested, and the man got his gun back the next day. So you think it's fine to give a child 2 seconds and open fire? Seriously? And nobody did anything wrong? And the cop who did it had already lost a police job due to incompetence? But no indictment? Come on, man!

A man (22 years old, black) was wandering around in the sporting goods department. He had picked up an air gun. Another person named Richie called the cops and gave them a hair-raising account of a madman loading a gun, aiming it at children, etc. It was possible later to sync the call with the video, and sure enough, Crawford never pointed at anyone, never loaded the gun, which was just a Daisy pellet rifle. But based on Richie's account over the phone, the cops came in firing, and Crawford was dead before he even knew there were policement in the store. But hey, normal mistake, no indictments. Crawford was black, don't you know. And blacks are unpredictable and violent criminal types, don't you know?

As far as I can tell, Brown went out of his way to be as dangerous and threatening as he could, and deserved what he got. But "as far as I can tell" would be a LOT farther if there had been a trial, full evidence, cross-examination of conflicting witnesses, etc. Instead, we had another of those "internal police investigations" which invariably determine that the police did nothing wrong.

YES! Maybe you get it after all. Information comes in, during the trial. So wait for the trial before blaming the cops. Uh, wait, there is no trial. The DA couldn't get an indictment. Isn't that amazing? Looks like we wait forever. The police department says the cop did nothing wrong, after an "internal investigation", but no information is released. Waiting for information takes a lot of patience.

But if the police, alongside the DA, decide not to investigate and not to hold a trial, then you are innocent forever, no matter how guilty you might be, because there is never a trial to find out.

Statistics do not commit crimes. The argument that Timor Rice must have been guilty because blacks commit more than their share of crimes is not logical. Rice was a child playing games in a park. He shouldn't be gunned down because Brown tried to take some other cop's gun in some other city.[/QUOTE]

What evidence did the grand jury not have in the Brown case?

Btw, the Staten Island choking case and the 12 year old were egregious over-reaction by the police. Certainly in the choking case, the cop should have been charged, and probably in the 12 yr old.

However, the Brown case and the recent one are clearly self-defense. There is no doubt that there are cases, perhaps many, where the cops over-react, but these two are not among them.

 

We will never know, now will we? After all, they decided not to move forward with a trial where we would have found out what the grand jury might not have seen. Remember, the grand jury is run by the prosecutor.

Of course, it's much easier to believe that the grand jury looked at everything, that Brown needed no legal representation, that cross-examination wasn't required, that favorable witnesses to Brown weren't needed (no need even to look for any), and so on.

As others have said, if you like the grand jury result, then they must have done everything right.

 

The three autopsies pretty, the witness statements, the physical evidence all supported the cop's contention. What more would you have liked. Be specific.