Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now they're peacefully smashing up a police car yelling "get your money".
 
Upchurch said:
Ah, true skeptics are okay with arguments from authority. Thanks for the lesson.
Click to expand...

Appeal to proper authority is always skeptical. And when it comes to issuing bills of indictment, there is no more proper authority than a grand jury.

What's your null hypothesis now? That grand juries are not a proper authority to decide these questions?
 
theprestige said:
Appeal to proper authority is always skeptical. And when it comes to issuing bills of indictment, there is no more proper authority than a grand jury.

What's your null hypothesis now? That grand juries are not a proper authority to decide these questions?
Click to expand...

And we have to remember that on both sides of the evidence there were experts leading the jury in what to look for. So while no individual jury member might have the expertize, there is over a 1000 years of experience leading them
 
Upchurch said:
Authority has two criteria. First, they have to have training and experience in the relevant field. Second, they have to be generally recognized as an authority in the relevant field by those in the field.

Anonymous, randomly selected citizens? Seems legit.
Click to expand...

You may want to read up on how the grand jury works.
 
Peacefully smashing windows of a Quiznos now. I wonder if they sell those 9mm sandwiches there?
 
theprestige said:
Appeal to proper authority is always skeptical. And when it comes to issuing bills of indictment, there is no more proper authority than a grand jury.

What's your null hypothesis now? That grand juries are not a proper authority to decide these questions?
Click to expand...

As with all juries, they are not determining truth. They are determining points of law. There may simply not have been enough physical evidence to determine what happened. We won't know until we see the evidence.
 
Upchurch said:
As with all juries, they are not determining truth. They are determining points of law. There may simply not have been enough physical evidence to determine what happened. We won't know until we see the evidence.
Click to expand...
They are finders of fact, and their decisions are the legal truth.
 
Upchurch said:
So was the OJ jury. Legal reality != reality
Click to expand...

No there is a major difference, the grand jury's job was to see if there was possibly a case to answer. They felt there was not even enough evidence to even do that.
 
MG1962 said:
Well is it? While it is clear the officer has acted within the law, the question still has to be asked why terminal force was applied in this situation. At least 10 shots were fired on a suburban street. I mean this kid was not exactly the Boston Bomber
Click to expand...

That's like asking if someone who drives too fast deserves to die. Did Wilson deserve to be attacked? Did the storeowner deserve to be robbed?

As McCulloch said several times this evening, there's no way to answer that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom