This is the south we are talking about, they are not above it.
Fun fact! Missouri is not part of the South and gave almost 3x as many soldiers to the U.S. than to the traitors in the Civil War. So shove it.
Fingers crossed that the Justice Department finishes its investigations (shooting and police force) soon, but I'm not betting on it since they still haven't finished Zimmerman's investigation.
Fun fact! The delineation of states, north/south, has less to do with their official voted side on the civil war and more to do with their status as slave or free. Which is one reason why the Confederacy recognized Missouri as a seceding state in 1861. And why it had strong guerrilla resistance throughout and after the war!
A combined force of over 12,000 Confederate soldiers, Arkansas State Troops, and Missouri State Guardsmen under Confederate Brigadier Ben McCulloch fought approximately 5,400 Federals in a punishing six hour battle.
See the bolded name? Wonder if Robert McCulloch, the attorney I believe purposefully presented the case terribly to the GJ, has any relation.
Edit: Also that there was a Battle of Hemp Bales in Missouri during the war. Just wanted to point that out, the more you know, etc
This stopped being about justice and more about revenge for a lot of people a long time ago.
If they wanted vengeance, they would have enacted vengeance on Darren Wilson themselves, rather than, you know, wait for the grand jury to potentially indict him?
Also, I'm going to leave this here.
Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.
That was from MLK in a speech he gave 46 years ago. Nothing has changed.
a lot rests on whether a white cop reasonably believes that a given black man is dangerous
e: or, shall we say, whether four people on a 12-person 9-white 3-black jury believe that it is objectively reasonable for a white cop to believe that a given black man is dangerous
Well some rioters have assault rifles. Maybe we can get some gun control laws out of this because I doubt there is anything conservatives fear more than a person of color with a gun.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Ugh. First, this situation is to comparable to the civil rights movement because, at a least at this stage, it doesn't have order, direction or leadership. Second, the civil right movement succeeded. That Dr. King was assassinated does not invalidate his successful approach to protest.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Is the protest still ongoing? Hopefully in the daylight hours it will become peaceful.
Ugh. First, this situation is to comparable to the civil rights movement because, at a least at this stage, it doesn't have order, direction or leadership. Second, the civil right movement succeeded. That Dr. King was assassinated does not invalidate his successful approach to protest.
This is a strange thread to be making such a claim in.
Peaceful protesting won't make the news while there's still any ever so small violent protesting going on.
That is the key point. The NY protest was all over the news. Completely peaceful. Once one person starts a fire, the news will be about that fire no matter how many peaceful protestors there are, despite fires being common and not normally news worthy while huge peaceful gatherings are rare and deserving of coverage.
Ugh. First, this situation is to comparable to the civil rights movement because, at a least at this stage, it doesn't have order, direction or leadership. Second, the civil right movement succeeded. That Dr. King was assassinated does not invalidate his successful approach to protest.
This is a strange thread to be making such a claim in.
It did succeed though. That there is a lot more work to be done does not invalidate the success of the movement.
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+3
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
During the height of the months-long protests in Ferguson last summer, police said demonstrators could protest all they want -- as long as they stayed home after dark.
The reasoning back then: Troublemakers from outside the city come in to create chaos under cover of darkness, making police's job of maintaining order difficult.
And yet, even though a grand jury reached a decision on whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson by Monday afternoon, the decision wasn't publicized until hours later -- around 8 p.m. in Missouri.
So why did officials wait so long?
How prosecutor defended grand jury's decision
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was asked by reporters about the nighttime announcement. Nixon said the decision was made solely by St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch.
CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said McCulloch's decision was "foolish and dangerous."
"I find this a completely bizarre decision to do this at night," Toobin said.
"Here's the thing about that time of night: it's dark. Anyone -- anyone! -- should have known that the decision in the Brown case would have been controversial. Crowd control is always more difficult in the dark."
CNN legal analyst Paul Callan noted the announcement was supposed to be made at 8 p.m. ET, but was rescheduled for 9 p.m. ET.
"Why would you be moving it another hour? I think the only reason can be that they don't have their security forces in place," he said.
Initially, prosecutors were expected to give law enforcement 48 hours' notice from when the grand jury made its decision to when the announcement was made. But that clearly didn't happen Monday, since the decision and the announcement came on the same day.
But there may have been advantages in keeping the decision secret for hours -- most businesses are closed and there's less traffic.
"Now, I can understand, maybe he wanted to make sure that all students had left school or that everyone had cleared out," said community activist John Gaskin, referrring to . But he could have easily made this (announcement) tomorrow morning."
Also, chilly nighttime weather can sometimes deter violence -- though Ferguson's near-freezing temperatures overnight didn't stop agitators from looting businesses and setting dozens of buildings and cars on fire.
Benjamin Crump, the attorney representing slain teenager Michael Brown's family, said Brown's parents didn't know what the decision was after dusk fell on Ferguson. And they found out that the jury had reached some sort of decision from watching CNN.
"It was very painful on behalf of his mother and father, that they did not get the notice that they were going to find out before the media found out."
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
To paraphrase a MLK quote: "A riot is the language of the unheard."
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
To paraphrase a MLK quote: "A riot is the language of the unheard."
There is a conscious washing of history on the part of the people in power toward the end of making every protest movement a success because it was peaceful or a failure because it was violent. Actual events are usually more nuanced.
so it sounds like this guy is advocating the "prosecutor had to pursue the case even though there wasn't enough evidence for indictment" position
i mean i think the better social outcome would have been indictment, since it would have at least given the appearance of a functioning legal system that keeps meaningful oversight over police
and also those statistics 11/16000 or whatever certainly give me pause
but honestly we all seem to agree that there was not enough evidence for a guilty verdict to be rendered. is it so hard to imagine that a jury earnestly found the same?
This isn't how grand juries work.
A prosecutor doesn't normally present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, he has no obligation to. It is not a trial, there is no "defense" side.
The accused can speak at their grand jury, but that's it, just speak. There is no defense case. The prosecutor just presents the evidence he has that shows he has a case, and the grand jury only fails to indict if there is no case, they aren't trying to weigh guilt or innocence.
This prosecutor handed the grand jury a defense case along with a prosecution case and told them to sort it out themselves.
It's difficult to argue that he was actually trying to get an indictment.
Since it's his job to get an indictment, and it is not his job to put on the defense's case, it's also difficult to argue that he was doing his job.
They are not analogous at all. What happened to Brown is so much worse.
really? why do you think so?
Wilson is a police officer. He was irrefutably the one the continued the violence as Brown ran. At the time Brown ran, self defense was not available, nor was a fleeing felon rule.
Contrast Zimmerman where Zimmerman had no business being there, but once things started, there are at least credible accounts that Martin was beating the hell out of him.
Having self defense available as an affirmative defense is a really major issue when you shoot someone to death.
Page 34, lines 7-19. Sergeant on scene testimony. As follows...
Q. Now, were you recording his statement?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Were you taking notes as he was giving you his statement?
A. No, ma'am. I did not.
Q. After his statement, did you go back to your department and write down note to help you recall the statement?
A. No ma'am, I did not.
Q. So this is from your memory of August 9th as far as what Darren Wilson told you and what you saw, correct?
A. That is correct.
/facepalm
Like, seriously. Unless I'm missing something here, that's pretty much just not doing your job correctly. Doesn't speak to whether or not Darren Wilson should have been indicted, but should give some indication as the general situation if Ferguson police aren't doing the due diligence of recording statements or writing notations of the situation for future reference in a situation such as this. That'll be for the federal investigation to suss out, though.
Page 34, lines 7-19. Sergeant on scene testimony. As follows...
Q. Now, were you recording his statement?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Were you taking notes as he was giving you his statement?
A. No, ma'am. I did not.
Q. After his statement, did you go back to your department and write down note to help you recall the statement?
A. No ma'am, I did not.
Q. So this is from your memory of August 9th as far as what Darren Wilson told you and what you saw, correct?
A. That is correct.
/facepalm
Like, seriously. Unless I'm missing something here, that's pretty much just not doing your job correctly. Doesn't speak to whether or not Darren Wilson should have been indicted, but should give some indication as the general situation if Ferguson police aren't doing the due diligence of recording statements or writing notations of the situation for future reference in a situation such as this. That'll be for the federal investigation to suss out, though.
Don't worry I'm sure if he had taken notes or written a report they would have conveniently burned up in a mysterious and highly-localized fire.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown steals from a convenience store
Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
???
Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times, during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited November 2014
The people rioting are terribly afraid of being killed or losing a loved one without warning, and since the regular safeguards, principles, laws, institutions and methods apparently do not discourage US police from killing black people with impunity, they are trying to ascertain whether rioting a lot and scaring lots of white people might discourage willy-nilly killing in the future.
I am not saying it is good or smart self-defense. I am saying it is a form of self-defense against a faceless, institutionalized and much more powerful enemy that ends the lives of black people at random.
It's just incredibly lame, to the point where it seems intentionally insulting, to tut-tut about how they should protest nice instead so all the suburban tweeters can nod sagely at some black woman holding up a poignant banner.
The rioters and the other uncouth and gauche people don't think you and your advice can help at all. They are right.
Absalon on
+4
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
People say things like this a lot, but there is no way to actually know if the violence was necessary or even helpful in achieving success. I am skeptical of pretty much every claim that a violent protest is responsible for change, outside of revolution.
Posts
Huh... Probably just a coincidence but
See the bolded name? Wonder if Robert McCulloch, the attorney I believe purposefully presented the case terribly to the GJ, has any relation.
Edit: Also that there was a Battle of Hemp Bales in Missouri during the war. Just wanted to point that out, the more you know, etc
If they wanted vengeance, they would have enacted vengeance on Darren Wilson themselves, rather than, you know, wait for the grand jury to potentially indict him?
Also, I'm going to leave this here.
That was from MLK in a speech he gave 46 years ago. Nothing has changed.
Steam: pazython
e: or, shall we say, whether four people on a 12-person 9-white 3-black jury believe that it is objectively reasonable for a white cop to believe that a given black man is dangerous
Ugh. First, this situation is to comparable to the civil rights movement because, at a least at this stage, it doesn't have order, direction or leadership. Second, the civil right movement succeeded. That Dr. King was assassinated does not invalidate his successful approach to protest.
This is a strange thread to be making such a claim in.
Protest does not mean riot. There are plenty of people peacefully protesting, not that the news cares.
That is the key point. The NY protest was all over the news. Completely peaceful. Once one person starts a fire, the news will be about that fire no matter how many peaceful protestors there are, despite fires being common and not normally news worthy while huge peaceful gatherings are rare and deserving of coverage.
Oh guns never stop being you.
It did succeed though. That there is a lot more work to be done does not invalidate the success of the movement.
Yes, good job being a first-world country there.
We should just call ourselves Russia.
To paraphrase a MLK quote: "A riot is the language of the unheard."
There is a conscious washing of history on the part of the people in power toward the end of making every protest movement a success because it was peaceful or a failure because it was violent. Actual events are usually more nuanced.
He had his fucking hands up
Included in the evidence
A: "At that time, no [it was] not."
Q: "At that time?"
A: "No."
They are not analogous at all. What happened to Brown is so much worse.
This isn't how grand juries work.
A prosecutor doesn't normally present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, he has no obligation to. It is not a trial, there is no "defense" side.
The accused can speak at their grand jury, but that's it, just speak. There is no defense case. The prosecutor just presents the evidence he has that shows he has a case, and the grand jury only fails to indict if there is no case, they aren't trying to weigh guilt or innocence.
This prosecutor handed the grand jury a defense case along with a prosecution case and told them to sort it out themselves.
It's difficult to argue that he was actually trying to get an indictment.
Since it's his job to get an indictment, and it is not his job to put on the defense's case, it's also difficult to argue that he was doing his job.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
really? why do you think so?
Almost everyday if your family is from the south.
Because while the outcome may have been the same, Zimmerman had no sworn duty to protect and serve and Wilson did.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Wilson is a police officer. He was irrefutably the one the continued the violence as Brown ran. At the time Brown ran, self defense was not available, nor was a fleeing felon rule.
Contrast Zimmerman where Zimmerman had no business being there, but once things started, there are at least credible accounts that Martin was beating the hell out of him.
Having self defense available as an affirmative defense is a really major issue when you shoot someone to death.
Page 34, lines 7-19. Sergeant on scene testimony. As follows...
Q. Now, were you recording his statement?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Were you taking notes as he was giving you his statement?
A. No, ma'am. I did not.
Q. After his statement, did you go back to your department and write down note to help you recall the statement?
A. No ma'am, I did not.
Q. So this is from your memory of August 9th as far as what Darren Wilson told you and what you saw, correct?
A. That is correct.
/facepalm
Like, seriously. Unless I'm missing something here, that's pretty much just not doing your job correctly. Doesn't speak to whether or not Darren Wilson should have been indicted, but should give some indication as the general situation if Ferguson police aren't doing the due diligence of recording statements or writing notations of the situation for future reference in a situation such as this. That'll be for the federal investigation to suss out, though.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
Don't worry I'm sure if he had taken notes or written a report they would have conveniently burned up in a mysterious and highly-localized fire.
They are actually very analogous. Both were unarmed, both were teenagers, both were black. Both were gunned down by someone who got away with it.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Brown steals from a convenience store
Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
???
Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times, during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
I am not saying it is good or smart self-defense. I am saying it is a form of self-defense against a faceless, institutionalized and much more powerful enemy that ends the lives of black people at random.
It's just incredibly lame, to the point where it seems intentionally insulting, to tut-tut about how they should protest nice instead so all the suburban tweeters can nod sagely at some black woman holding up a poignant banner.
The rioters and the other uncouth and gauche people don't think you and your advice can help at all. They are right.
People say things like this a lot, but there is no way to actually know if the violence was necessary or even helpful in achieving success. I am skeptical of pretty much every claim that a violent protest is responsible for change, outside of revolution.