Ferguson Police Use Tear Gas on Media

[klapauzius]

Shades of Malice Green all over again. Don't like the verdict? (in this case grand jury decision) Get someone to find a way to pin SOMETHING on the cop at all costs... Its for the "GREATER GOOD"

I saw the ABC interview with Darren Wilson and the way he describes what happened is really mind-boggling.

He sounded like he had very careful rehearsed his answers to match the all legal requirements. You could basically check off all the sections in the law for justifiable homicide by police.

The way he described Micheal Brown (who, btw, I dont think was a Saint or the aspiring college kid he is now being described by some) as some maniac, hellbent on killing him with his bare hands just seems very hard to believe.

There are too many open questions still that should have been resolved in a trial.

And yes, this would have served the GREATER GOOD, because we cant let people shoot other people dead and then just say "it was self defense" and take their word for it.

[mikesus]

Shades of Malice Green all over again. Don't like the verdict? (in this case grand jury decision) Get someone to find a way to pin SOMETHING on the cop at all costs... Its for the "GREATER GOOD"

I saw the ABC interview with Darren Wilson and the way he describes what happened is really mind-boggling.

He sounded like he had very careful rehearsed his answers to match the all legal requirements. You could basically check off all the sections in the law for justifiable homicide by police.

The way he described Micheal Brown (who, btw, I dont think was a Saint or the aspiring college kid he is now being described by some) as some maniac, hellbent on killing him with his bare hands just seems very hard to believe.

There are too many open questions still that should have been resolved in a trial.

And yes, this would have served the GREATER GOOD, because we cant let people shoot other people dead and then just say "it was self defense" and take their word for it.

No one just "took his word for it" obviously you are not interested in any facts you have already decided he is guilty. Not sure if you understand, in our system you are innocent til proven guilty. Not until the media and talking heads decide you are guilty. The prosecutor presented the ENTIRE case (something not normally done at a grand jury) But he chose to present all evidence. Even with that, the grand jury (people from the community) chose not to indict him.

Its also obvious that you aren't interested in justice, because justice was served. Sorry they didn't decide to lynch him. They based their decision on autopsy results and statements from folks that were actually there. (one of which appears to have been killed for telling the truth for what he said he saw) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2025417" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; There are reports that this young man was a witness for the grand jury.

Folks rioting don't want justice, they want vengeance.

[mbender]

The way he described Micheal Brown (who, btw, I don't think was a Saint or the aspiring college kid he is now being described by some) as some maniac, hellbent on killing him with his bare hands just seems very hard to believe.

Not in order, but

1. The word he used was demon, rather than 'maniac'. More religious overtones in the former, don't you know.
2. I don't think he used 'hellbent', but perhaps he should have for the above reason. :-\
3. Perhaps it was a typo, but all of us Michaels spell it the same, 'a' before 'e', so there's never any reason to get it wrong. Just a pet peeve, sorry.

For mikesus et al: so, juries and grand juries and judges and cops are always right? OJ? Not saying I know what is right, but there are/were a lot of anomalies in this case/incident/jury...

[mikesus]

For mikesus et al: so, juries and grand juries and judges and cops are always right? OJ? Not saying I know what is right, but there are/were a lot of anomalies in this case/incident/jury...

Thankfully we no longer string people up based on the court of public opinion. I am in no way stating that the officer didn't have a HUGE chip on his shoulder and was looking for a fight that day. (Why? Because I have no idea if he did or not) Anomalies or not, the grand jury no billed him. Typically, grand juries will let the rest of the court system "figure it out" I have actually been on a number of grand juries and have seen this personally. There must have been some compelling evidence not to kick the can down the road. (I suspect its a combination of the statement of the officer combined with the autopsy)

There is a reason why we have the concept of double jeopardy. The idea that if we don't like the outcome we will just find something to charge the person with at the federal level to appease the public is a slippery slope...

[Nubo]

The prosecutor presented the ENTIRE case (something not normally done at a grand jury) But he chose to present all evidence. Even with that, the grand jury (people from the community) chose not to indict him.

I accept the grand jury's decision, but I must say I'm ambivalent about the notion of a prosecutor presenting exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. As you say, this is unusual and I'll bet there are a quite a number of folks sitting in jail who would have loved to have had such a broad-minded prosecutor acting in their defense!

[klapauzius]

No one just "took his word for it" obviously you are not interested in any facts you have already decided he is guilty. Not sure if you understand, in our system you are innocent til proven guilty. Not until the media and talking heads decide you are guilty. The prosecutor presented the ENTIRE case (something not normally done at a grand jury) But he chose to present all evidence. Even with that, the grand jury (people from the community) chose not to indict him.

Its also obvious that you aren't interested in justice, because justice was served. Sorry they didn't decide to lynch him. They based their decision on autopsy results and statements from folks that were actually there. (one of which appears to have been killed for telling the truth for what he said he saw) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2025417" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; There are reports that this young man was a witness for the grand jury.

Folks rioting don't want justice, they want vengeance.

To the contrary, if you read my post, you would understand that I would like to have the facts, and a trial would be the place to lay them out for everyone. There are too many open questions still.

Given that more than 90% of grand juries result in indictments, as the legal scholars tell us, this is highly unusual?

Overall this series of events seems to follow a rather pathological and unhealthy pattern.
Therefore to conclude that justice was served and everything is settled and fine now will not help to avoid future events like this.

If you take race for a moment out of the picture, having armed men shooting unarmed men dead and then claiming that it was legal is highly destructive for our civil society and needs to be evaluated very carefully.
We want this to be rare events and we want to give everybody the impression that as a society we take this very seriously.

Therefore such investigations should have the utmost integrity and in Ferguson, that did not seem to be the case.

[klapauzius]

An interesting assessment of the eye-witness accounts:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/new ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mikesus]

having armed men shooting unarmed men dead and then claiming that it was legal is highly destructive for our civil society and needs to be evaluated very carefully.

Really? As soon as he started grabbing for his gun he was no longer unarmed. When someone has the physical ability to beat someone senseless, they are are not unarmed.

So should the police just ask them to politely stop beating them? From your armchair quarterback position, whats the solution to police faced with great bodily harm? Just ask the misunderstood gentle giants to please stop? I am sure they would invite your solution.


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/24/video-po ... armed-man/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci ... om-sept-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11 ... isturbing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/11/27/ ... o-officer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[klapauzius]

Really? As soon as he started grabbing for his gun he was no longer unarmed. When someone has the physical ability to beat someone senseless, they are are not unarmed.

So should the police just ask them to politely stop beating them? From your armchair quarterback position, whats the solution to police faced with great bodily harm? Just ask the misunderstood gentle giants to please stop? I am sure they would invite your solution.

They should. Because, if officer Wilson had not drawn his gun that day, both, he and Mike Brown, would be alive today and Wilson's life would be so much less stressful than it is now.

I guess the armchair quarterback rebuke would apply if this was an isolated case, a freak accident.
But it is fairly obvious, that this was a typical situation for US law enforcement. The generic facts known about this event do allow armchair quarterbacking, because the details simply dont matter here, when you consider the big picture.

That a whole organization, such as the police, can do better is proven here:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... al-in-2011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are better ways to act as a police force, and like always, the smart way to deal with your own deficiencies is to acknowledge ones faults your errors and starting to think about how to do things better in the future.

However, the way this is handled in Ferguson right now seems, as if everything went just fine and there is no real need for improvement.

[mikesus]

That a whole organization, such as the police, can do better is proven here:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... al-in-2011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are better ways to act as a police force, and like always, the smart way to deal with your own deficiencies is to acknowledge ones faults your errors and starting to think about how to do things better in the future.

However, the way this is handled in Ferguson right now seems, as if everything went just fine and there is no real need for improvement.

Again, what is your solution for someone beating a police officer? You are comparing a completely different society and stating it works there so it should work here.


You assumption that its the same is naive at best. Germany doesn't have slums and ghettos that we have in the US.

http://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-slum ... -they-like" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

additionally you are comparing a high crime area to an area with virtually no crime

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Fe ... souri.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;