i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
what is the basis of this prediction? the rodney king beating went to trial
As was just mentioned, Zimmerman was more recent than King.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but when SKFM agrees with me that an indictment should have happened at the very least, not doing so is figuratively pouring salt into some very fresh, very bloody wounds.
If rioting had happened after a not guilty verdict, I think I would apportion a little more of the blame on those rioting than I do now. Not very much more at all, though, because of the situation in Missouri with judges/prosecutors/defense attorneys, though.
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
It's less that the people are outraged that the justice system tried and failed to punish Wilson
It's that they are outraged that the justice system ran screaming from every opportunity to even CONSIDER putting Wilson on trial, and surprise surprise there will be no trial!
They have absolutely no reason to believe that the police are not completely above the law.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+12
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
The prosecution is the only party that presents evidence at a grand jury. The whole point is to decide if the case is even worth being heard.
So in essence the failure to indict falls entirely upon the head of the prosecutor in this case, because there was clearly enough evidence to get an indictment if they wanted to. But they did not.
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
They could have done that with the grand jury. With a prosecutor who cared about taking the case seriously.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
Maybe, though they probably could have calmed minds by giving this case the full trial it deserved. Present at least the illusion of justice.
Also by choicing a fucking jury that's actually indicative of the fucking 75 percent AA surrounding community. I mean fuck
wasn't the jury chosen before any of this?
like, there's a system for choosing juries that is county-level or city-level or whatever. i get that you're angry but it seems to me that abridging the established system ad hoc wouldn't really be in the interests of justice
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
Yes, if they were so inclined.
Often in the case of sketchy officer shootings they defer to the grand jury to maintain a veneer of impartiality.
If they automatically brought charges the cops would scream at them
If they automatically passed on charges the community would scream at them
This way they get to put the ultimate responsibility on the GJ
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+16
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If they indicted (which they should have IMO) then we'd just have kicked the can down the road though. There was no chance of a guilty verdict and not guilty = riot.
The Zimmerman case resulted in a lot of "well that was obviously bullshit but the jury has spoken".
Zimmerman trial showed a very different fact pattern than the media did. Having the trial shower there was no way to convict. Hard to believe that happens here. He's never be convicted, but I doubt the evidence would have created the kind of doubt there was in Zimmerman.
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
They could have done that with the grand jury. With a prosecutor who cared about taking the case seriously.
so the charge is that the prosecutor didn't do his job properly in front of the grand jury and thus led them into failing to indict?
i'm not being snide here - i'm trying to understand.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
They could have done that with the grand jury. With a prosecutor who cared about taking the case seriously.
so the charge is that the prosecutor didn't do his job properly in front of the grand jury and thus led them into failing to indict?
i'm not being snide here - i'm trying to understand.
Bob McCulloch has a -real- shifty history.
+12
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think there is an excellent chance that the end result of this is minority towns spending more on fancy police gear, to prevent this kind of riot from happening in their town.
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
They could have done that with the grand jury. With a prosecutor who cared about taking the case seriously.
so the charge is that the prosecutor didn't do his job properly in front of the grand jury and thus led them into failing to indict?
i'm not being snide here - i'm trying to understand.
Yup, that's it. It's why people wanted a special prosecutor, the DA they had had no credibility he was going to do his job. He refused to step aside until the governor forced him to.
+1
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
They could have done that with the grand jury. With a prosecutor who cared about taking the case seriously.
so the charge is that the prosecutor didn't do his job properly in front of the grand jury and thus led them into failing to indict?
i'm not being snide here - i'm trying to understand.
Considering how low the burden of proof is and easy it is to get a GJ to indict anyone, for anything, and what we know of this case
Yeah, to an outside observer it looks an awful lot like he threw the case
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
i might be underestimating the anger here, but it seems to me that an indictment would only have postponed the riot until the announcement of a not-guilty verdict
If there was rioting under this scenario, it would likely have been less raw and angry than what we are seeing tonight, if only due to the fact that yes, Wilson had his day in court. Charges were at the very least brought.
It was exceedingly obvious in this case that the prosecutor could have had this brought to trial and did not want to.
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
They could have done that with the grand jury. With a prosecutor who cared about taking the case seriously.
so the charge is that the prosecutor didn't do his job properly in front of the grand jury and thus led them into failing to indict?
i'm not being snide here - i'm trying to understand.
Yes the argument is the prosecutor had no intent to pursue indictment despite it being his duty.
I think there is an excellent chance that the end result of this is minority towns spending more on fancy police gear, to prevent this kind of riot from happening in their town.
Worked for Ferguson, right?
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I think there is an excellent chance that the end result of this is minority towns spending more on fancy police gear, to prevent this kind of riot from happening in their town.
I'm sure Ferguson wasn't an isolated incident on that front before this happened.
I think there is an excellent chance that the end result of this is minority towns spending more on fancy police gear, to prevent this kind of riot from happening in their town.
Worked for Ferguson, right?
The argument would go that they didn't have enough on Ferguson.
I think there is an excellent chance that the end result of this is minority towns spending more on fancy police gear, to prevent this kind of riot from happening in their town.
Worked for Ferguson, right?
The argument would go that they didn't have enough on Ferguson.
If they went too far they get into worse optics nation wide then they do already.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Like a demon?
get fucked Darren Wilson
+28
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
To be fair, we all saw the stare down in the store. Did he deserve to be shot? Absolutely not. But I'll bet most people would have been scared of that kind of stare down.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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?
I'm interested in seeing this "packet" of information the prosecutor kept mentioning we'd get access to. If the witness accounts (which it seemed that most people based their initial opinions on) were really changing all over the place each time they were interviewed, it isn't difficult to see why the indictment turned out the way it did, especially since little or none of the physical evidence (that I'm aware of) doesn't disagree with what the official account was.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
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?
I'd find this more compelling had the prosecutor been someone I found credible. McCulloch's presence taints the entire GJ proceeding, even if it would have been the same result.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Posts
could a prosecutor indict without taking it before a grand jury?
if so then what was the point of the grand jury?
As was just mentioned, Zimmerman was more recent than King.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but when SKFM agrees with me that an indictment should have happened at the very least, not doing so is figuratively pouring salt into some very fresh, very bloody wounds.
If rioting had happened after a not guilty verdict, I think I would apportion a little more of the blame on those rioting than I do now. Not very much more at all, though, because of the situation in Missouri with judges/prosecutors/defense attorneys, though.
It's less that the people are outraged that the justice system tried and failed to punish Wilson
It's that they are outraged that the justice system ran screaming from every opportunity to even CONSIDER putting Wilson on trial, and surprise surprise there will be no trial!
They have absolutely no reason to believe that the police are not completely above the law.
Not to make blasphemous comparisons or anything, mind you.
But he worked really hard in that statement to wash his hands of any responsibility.
considering these cops lit one of their own cars on fire with teargas I wouldn't put it past them not knowing what they're talkinga bout
The prosecution is the only party that presents evidence at a grand jury. The whole point is to decide if the case is even worth being heard.
So in essence the failure to indict falls entirely upon the head of the prosecutor in this case, because there was clearly enough evidence to get an indictment if they wanted to. But they did not.
They could have done that with the grand jury. With a prosecutor who cared about taking the case seriously.
wasn't the jury chosen before any of this?
like, there's a system for choosing juries that is county-level or city-level or whatever. i get that you're angry but it seems to me that abridging the established system ad hoc wouldn't really be in the interests of justice
Yes, if they were so inclined.
Often in the case of sketchy officer shootings they defer to the grand jury to maintain a veneer of impartiality.
If they automatically brought charges the cops would scream at them
If they automatically passed on charges the community would scream at them
This way they get to put the ultimate responsibility on the GJ
Zimmerman trial showed a very different fact pattern than the media did. Having the trial shower there was no way to convict. Hard to believe that happens here. He's never be convicted, but I doubt the evidence would have created the kind of doubt there was in Zimmerman.
well ex military. but watching them sure is interesting.
this is some real microcosm of america shit right here
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
so the charge is that the prosecutor didn't do his job properly in front of the grand jury and thus led them into failing to indict?
i'm not being snide here - i'm trying to understand.
Bob McCulloch has a -real- shifty history.
Yup, that's it. It's why people wanted a special prosecutor, the DA they had had no credibility he was going to do his job. He refused to step aside until the governor forced him to.
it looks like that shitty call of duty game that i didn't finish because i couldn't accept the premise
Considering how low the burden of proof is and easy it is to get a GJ to indict anyone, for anything, and what we know of this case
Yeah, to an outside observer it looks an awful lot like he threw the case
Yes the argument is the prosecutor had no intent to pursue indictment despite it being his duty.
I think this article is pretty illuminating.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/
PSN: jrrl_absent
Worked for Ferguson, right?
I'm sure Ferguson wasn't an isolated incident on that front before this happened.
Huh. Black people be scary.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
The argument would go that they didn't have enough on Ferguson.
If they went too far they get into worse optics nation wide then they do already.
get fucked Darren Wilson
To be fair, we all saw the stare down in the store. Did he deserve to be shot? Absolutely not. But I'll bet most people would have been scared of that kind of stare down.
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?
He also describes grabbing Brown's arm as "like a 5-year-old grabbing Hulk Hogan".
Maybe those sonic weapons or ballistic foam or something? There are heavier duty crowd suppression weapons than tear gas.
24" pythons
i wonder how many of them live there
i wonder if any of them will come home to find their houses burned down
or if they'll go into work tomorrow and find they don't have a job anymore
maybe they should just deploy drones on them to keep our sold... police officers safe.
Honestly, if they start pacifying american civilians they're going to do way more harm than good.
They can't win this fight, they can just do different levels of losing with it.
I'd find this more compelling had the prosecutor been someone I found credible. McCulloch's presence taints the entire GJ proceeding, even if it would have been the same result.