Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
newyorkguy said:
IMO there's three things driving this whole uproar over the Michael Brown killing. First is the disparity between black youths killed by police and any other group you can mention. It's 21 times greater than white youths of the same age.



Second is the almost total lack of police accountability. Given the racial history in the United States common sense tells you that some of the police killings undoubtedly involved excessive use of force.


One of the most frequent factors involved is when the police officer had alternatives to using deadly force but chose not to use them. Blacks say the treatment they often get at the hands of police would not be tolerated if it was whites on the receiving end.

Third, you could even say, some of the posters here are contributing to the climate that produces the kinds of violent reactions we saw in Ferguson. When people pretend there is no problem between police and blacks; it's all on blacks. If they weren't this, if they didn't do that. Some whites virtually gloat over the latest controversial police killing of a black youth in ways that suggest they're clearly biased. That attitude comes through loud and clear and produces extreme reactions. When black people feel the system is treating them unfairly, and a significant number of citizens actually support it because of racial hostility towards African Americans, some blacks will react more extremely. In New York we have had bad police shootings but we don't have the kinds of boiling over of emotions that we saw in Missouri. Why? Because at least in New York police have shown a willingness to consider, yes maybe there was something wrong. Police departments have acted to revise guidelines and use enhanced training techniques to lower the rate at which officers use deadly force. That makes a difference. It gives people hope that maybe tomorrow will be better. In places like Missouri people probably fear tomorrow may be even worse.
Click to expand...
First and foremost, the uproar is provoked by the people lying about what happened. Still marching hollering "Hands up! Don't Shoot" The above post continues in that vein. At least try to get the facts right.
I agree about police accountability, BTW. There is an adversarial attitude between the people and the police, marked by both sides. The far Right and the far Left contribute daily, and the police departments remain arrogant, also.
Maybe if people would quit barking about "Their rights" when they are wrong about them anyway, and maybe if the cops would stop considering everybody as criminals who just haven't been caught yet, we might get somewhere.
 
newyorkguy said:
Second is the almost total lack of police accountability. Given the racial history in the United States common sense tells you that some of the police killings undoubtedly involved excessive use of force.
Click to expand...

Then there should be examples of such cars brought forwards. The recent cases of Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown were terrible cases to rally behind.

find the cases of actual abuse and campaign on those.
 
Giz said:
Then there should be examples of such cars brought forwards. The recent cases of Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown were terrible cases to rally behind.

find the cases of actual abuse and campaign on those.
Click to expand...

The Walmart shooting is one such case, but it got overshadowed by Mike Brown.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/us/ohio-walmart-death/index.html

Crawford's death was senseless. Gunned down while he was on the phone.
 
Giz said:
A good example. A case can be made there that the police were far too quick to escalate to deadly force.

It is frustrating that when there are good cases out there, it is the terribly bad cases that get so much support.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that Michael Brown wasn't a great case to rally behind (but as myself and others have pointed out, this wasn't really about Michael Brown as much as it was about a community feeling it is treated unfairly by law enforcement reaching a breaking point), but it's laughable to suggest that there are "good" cases to rally behind.

In the Crawford case, the police were exonerated, and many people supported that. The consensus seemed to be that Crawford put himself in that situation, and therefore his death at the hands of overzealous police was his own fault.

And we're seeing the same narrative play out in the case of the 12 year-old who was recently shot to death by overzealous police. Feel free to peruse the thread, and count how many posts in until someone makes a Darwin Award crack. About a dead 12 year-old.

The point is, there is no "good" case. A segment of our country will always find justification for the police behaving this way, regardless of the circumstance.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nonsense. Had the case gone to trial, Wilson would not have had to prove that. The prosecution would still have had to prove that it was not self-defense. The only difference is that at trial, they would have needed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas for the grand jury, they only needed to meet probable cause. And if they can't even meet probable cause, how the hell are they going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

The obvious answer is that they couldn't. So why bring it to trial, when there was no chance at victory? Just to temporarily placate the baying mob? That's not justice.
Click to expand...

Not quite, Ziggurat. Self defense is an affirmative defense. At trial, the burden is on the defendant to prove self defense. (generally by a preponderance of evidence). From my experience (see my prior posts) a self defense issue raised by the defendant is rarely a hurdle to finding probably cause at the GJ level.
Why bring it to trial? As i said earlier, I agree that there was little (but not 'no') chance of 'victory'. However, that's partly due to the fact that cops are given huge deference by juries. The main reason it should have gone to trial is that that was the proper venue for deciding the issues of fact here. It would haqve been public, and both sides would hopefully had worthy representation. The way this case was handled was just weird.
 
Giz said:
A good example. A case can be made there that the police were far too quick to escalate to deadly force.

It is frustrating that when there are good cases out there, it is the terribly bad cases that get so much support.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
johnny karate said:
I don't disagree that Michael Brown wasn't a great case to rally behind (but as myself and others have pointed out, this wasn't really about Michael Brown as much as it was about a community feeling it is treated unfairly by law enforcement reaching a breaking point), but it's laughable to suggest that there are "good" cases to rally behind.

In the Crawford case, the police were exonerated, and many people supported that. The consensus seemed to be that Crawford put himself in that situation, and therefore his death at the hands of overzealous police was his own fault.

And we're seeing the same narrative play out in the case of the 12 year-old who was recently shot to death by overzealous police. Feel free to peruse the thread, and count how many posts in until someone makes a Darwin Award crack. About a dead 12 year-old.

The point is, there is no "good" case. A segment of our country will always find justification for the police behaving this way, regardless of the circumstance.
Click to expand...

True. So what is the solution? Do you think if suddenly the police force in the U.s. were suddenly made 90% black, that once they started gunning down unarmed white guys, that 'segment' of the country would suddenly have a change of heart about the police?
 
stanfr said:
The main reason it should have gone to trial is that that was the proper venue for deciding the issues of fact here.
Click to expand...
It is? Have you ever read the 5th Amendment? You don't put people on trial in the USA for such a serious crime until you can actually show a crime may have been committed.
 
stanfr said:
The main reason it should have gone to trial is that that was the proper venue for deciding the issues of fact here. It would haqve been public, and both sides would hopefully had worthy representation. The way this case was handled was just weird.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The only real opportunity for conviction would have been witness intimidation. That was a very serious concern, it could have severely perverted justice, and it really should make you hesitant to go to trial, especially if you're only doing it for the sake of appearances rather than because you think you could actually secure a conviction. Furthermore, a trial is not the only proper venue for deciding the issues of fact. Grand juries serve that purpose as well. They are supposed to prevent cases going to trial when there is not enough evidence, as happened here. Otherwise, why even have them? I realize that prosecutors can manipulate grand juries into handing down indictments that should never see the light of day (the whole "ham sandwich" cliche), but it shouldn't be taken as a bad sign when a prosecutor doesn't abuse that capability.
 
WildCat said:
It is? Have you ever read the 5th Amendment? You don't put people on trial in the USA for such a serious crime until you can actually show a crime may have been committed.
Click to expand...

It's called probable cause--you heard of that? Point being that many many many people (many of them minorities...) are put on trial with far less evidence than the conflicting witness testimony (and debatable forensics) that were in this case. Brown was unarmed (fact) he was shot at a distance (fact) There are witnesses who say he was shot while attempting to surrender (fact)You may disagree with the evidence, but it's not your decision to make. Traditionally, it has been a jury's decision, assuming there is a prosecutor with the guts to charge a cop. I don't think there should be two different standards for cops and citizens--why do you think there should??
 
Ziggurat said:
I disagree. The only real opportunity for conviction would have been witness intimidation. That was a very serious concern, it could have severely perverted justice, and it really should make you hesitant to go to trial, especially if you're only doing it for the sake of appearances rather than because you think you could actually secure a conviction. Furthermore, a trial is not the only proper venue for deciding the issues of fact. Grand juries serve that purpose as well. They are supposed to prevent cases going to trial when there is not enough evidence, as happened here. Otherwise, why even have them? I realize that prosecutors can manipulate grand juries into handing down indictments that should never see the light of day (the whole "ham sandwich" cliche), but it shouldn't be taken as a bad sign when a prosecutor doesn't abuse that capability.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Why do you think they had the lengthy unusual one in this case? Could it have been because of political reasons?? ;) That is the whole point--why can't we remove politics from these types of (serious) decisions and handle cases free of political biases. We don't--and that's the whole point--the justice system is skewed, it favors certain groups and punishes others.
 
johnny karate said:
I don't disagree that Michael Brown wasn't a great case to rally behind (but as myself and others have pointed out, this wasn't really about Michael Brown as much as it was about a community feeling it is treated unfairly by law enforcement reaching a breaking point), but it's laughable to suggest that there are "good" cases to rally behind.
Click to expand...

I've come to doubt this. I don't know what "the community" felt. I know what a lot of people say "the community" feels. I don't know who "the community" is, except that there are a bunch of people who happened to be around there and did some things.

This seems to be the ultimate Rorshack test. People look at it and go, "aah, this is a perfect example of what I've been saying for years." Whether they are racists or anti-racists or whatever.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Bad mistake, but also irrelevant, Wilson never shot Brown when Brown was running away, he shot him when Brown was running at him.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. They were given wrong information. And the prosecutor couldn;t even answer a very simple, basic question that a 9th grader could.
 
Nihilianth said:
It doesn't matter. They were given wrong information. And the prosecutor couldn;t even answer a very simple, basic question that a 9th grader could.
Click to expand...

If the wrong information had no affect on the outcome then yes you're right, it doesn't matter. Since the physical evidence shows that it is was never a case of Wilson shooting a fleeing Brown, then whether or not he was allowed to do so is irrelevant. Had he fired at a fleeing Brown, then yes it'd be an incredibly bad mistake because it would have affected the outcome, but since he never did it, what the law says about whether he could or not is totally irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom