Riots expected after acquittal: Michael Brown

[moonbogg]

They were already angry about police treatment for years. This just set it off.

Same with Rodney King. Yeah he was a dumb ass drunk driver, but the handcuffed 6-man beating did not seem entirely justified to some folks. It was like a last straw for folks already abused and victimized.


The Ferguson protests were inevitable. Just needed a catalyst. That its based on a false pretense really isnt the most important fact here.

So are they victims of the system? Or are they victims of their own attitudes and behavior?

 

[Mai72]

Looks like the Korean Alamo to me :hmm:

The LA riots of 1992.

 

[doubledeluxe]

South Park pretty much nailed this whole issue.

 

[Mai72]

South Park pretty much nailed this whole issue.

South Park is racist.

 

[doubledeluxe]

No they are not. It is called satire.

 

[jagec]

So are they victims of the system? Or are they victims of their own attitudes and behavior?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[dougp]

They should riot if the Grand Jury acquits. It tells them what they have suspected all along, that their police are above the laws, and that protesting is not going to change that.

The Grand Jury is not a criminal trial, it is just a formal hearing to see if there is reason to bring charges against the accused. There are 6 eye witness accounts that claim he killed that kid in cold blood, even if a criminal trial finds that they are mistaken, or that their was unusual circumstances that lead to an acquittal, all a Grand Jury needs is probably cause, the same level of suspicion that the cop needed to stop Brown in the first place. There is undoubtedly enough for probably cause. The very fact that the Grand Jury has taken so long to see all the evidence tells us so.

This extended Grand Jury session has been a ploy to allow tensions to die down so they can sweep it under the rug, except tensions haven't died down and now they just going to sweep it under the rug anyway.

You mean the ones that were discredited? What about all the physical evidence that pointed out Brown attacked the officer?

 

[SMOGZINN]

You mean the ones that were discredited? What about all the physical evidence that pointed out Brown attacked the officer?

Once again, this is NOT the trial, the Grand Jury is not supposed to make that sort of decision. All they need is that there is probable cause for there to be a trial. The fact that there is this much evidence on both sides shows that a trial is needed.

This is being used as an end around a public trial. This is a case in which the defence and the prosecutors are literally working together to keep Wilson from being charged.

 

[waggy]

ahh i see making excuses already.

 

[CZroe]

...There are 6 eye witness accounts that claim he killed that kid in cold blood...

That means a lot less than you think it does. Let me tell you a personal life experience we witnessed:
Our friend was one of only two white families living in the Eastgate Apartments projects. There were no issues. Everyone was neighborly until one day when a man rear-ended his mom's parked car at the mailboxes while his mom was checking the mail. It didn't matter that his aunt lives right next to him and all of his cousins and their father were black; all that mattered was that they were white and the man that hit them was black. ALL of the black neighbors told the police that his sister was playing in the front seat and knocked it out of "Park," which caused it to roll back into the neighbor. It was a complete fabrication, but there simply weren't enough witnesses telling the truth to counter it.

Don't be ignorant to reality. Do NOT trust agenda-driven "witnesses."

 

[DrPizza]

They should riot if the Grand Jury acquits. It tells them what they have suspected all along, that their police are above the laws, and that protesting is not going to change that.

The Grand Jury is not a criminal trial, it is just a formal hearing to see if there is reason to bring charges against the accused. There are 6 eye witness accounts that claim he killed that kid in cold blood, even if a criminal trial finds that they are mistaken, or that their was unusual circumstances that lead to an acquittal, all a Grand Jury needs is probably cause, the same level of suspicion that the cop needed to stop Brown in the first place. There is undoubtedly enough for probably cause. The very fact that the Grand Jury has taken so long to see all the evidence tells us so.

This extended Grand Jury session has been a ploy to allow tensions to die down so they can sweep it under the rug, except tensions haven't died down and now they just going to sweep it under the rug anyway.

Once again, this is NOT the trial, the Grand Jury is not supposed to make that sort of decision. All they need is that there is probable cause for there to be a trial. The fact that there is this much evidence on both sides shows that a trial is needed.

This is being used as an end around a public trial. This is a case in which the defence and the prosecutors are literally working together to keep Wilson from being charged.

So, you're saying that if there were 6 people who claimed I burned a house down, but the grand jury was presented with pictures of the house in mint condition, that those 6 people aren't completely discredited and that there actually is evidence that I did it?

You're saying that a couple of people lying is sufficient evidence to charge a person with a crime and force them to spend 10's of thousands more dollars on their defense, when all the rest of the physical evidence tied to the case completely discredits those people who are lying?

Add on another half dozen people whose testimony matches the physical evidence fully, and whose testimony indicates that there was absolutely no crime committed?

Seriously?

(Note: the only evidence that Wilson committed a crime is the discredited stories by a half dozen people. You know, the people who originally said, "he shot him in the back!" Then changed their story, then changed their story again and again every time more physical evidence was released that completely refuted their original statements.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That means a lot less than you think it does. Let me tell you a personal life experience we witnessed:
Our friend was one of only two white families living in the Eastgate Apartments projects. There were no issues. Everyone was neighborly until one day when a man rear-ended his mom's parked car at the mailboxes while his mom was checking the mail. It didn't matter that his aunt lives right next to him and all of his cousins and their father were black; all that mattered was that they were white and the man that hit them was black. ALL of the black neighbors told the police that the his sister was playing in the front seat and knocked it out of "Park," which caused it to roll back into the neighbor. It was a complete fabrication, but there simply weren't enough witnesses telling the truth to counter it.

Don't be ignorant to reality. Do NOT trust agenda-driven "witnesses."

Nice story. Let me ask you a question, If a bank was robbed and 6 people said that they saw CZroe do it, do you think the Grand Jury would spend 6 months hearing every little shread of evidence and then try to decide if those 6 eyewitnesses were trustworthy before deciding to indict and letting it go to trial? If you don't think that would happen then that means that cop is getting prefered judicial treatment because he is a police officer.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So, you're saying that if there were 6 people who claimed I burned a house down, but the grand jury was presented with pictures of the house in mint condition, that those 6 people aren't completely discredited and that there actually is evidence that I did it?

You're saying that a couple of people lying is sufficient evidence to charge a person with a crime and force them to spend 10's of thousands more dollars on their defense, when all the rest of the physical evidence tied to the case completely discredits those people who are lying?

But the house is not in mint condition here, it is burned down. We are asking if you had good reason to burn it down or not. The eyewitness accounts might be discredited, but that is something that a Trial Jury decides, not a Grand Jury. If it was as easy as 'here are photos showing that they are lying' then the Grand Jury would have been over in 2 hours. The fact that it took months tells us that there is enough there for a trial, because they held a secret one.

 

[shortylickens]

So are they victims of the system? Or are they victims of their own attitudes and behavior?

honestly I dont know. But either way its a bad situation and ready to explode.

 

[Brian Stirling]

They were already angry about police treatment for years. This just set it off.

Same with Rodney King. Yeah he was a dumb ass drunk driver, but the handcuffed 6-man beating did not seem entirely justified to some folks. It was like a last straw for folks already abused and victimized.


The Ferguson protests were inevitable. Just needed a catalyst. That its based on a false pretense really isnt the most important fact here.

Thanks Shorty, to bad this thought will go over the hot heads that we have here.

There was a time not long ago when you mearly had to say you thought such and such black guy was responsible for the rape of a white girl and you'd get, wait for it, .... a lynch mob.

Too many people from ALL walks of life act or react with primal rage and appear unable to use there brain.

Sadly, there is a very high probability that there will be riots and not just in Ferguson. And, using the same logic, there will be plenty of whites that will either say it outright or think it to themselves, that the rioters are animals etc.

We've not progressed much have we...


Brian

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So, you're saying that if there were 6 people who claimed I burned a house down, but the grand jury was presented with pictures of the house in mint condition, that those 6 people aren't completely discredited and that there actually is evidence that I did it?

Unless you're implying that Michael Brown is actually alive, this analogy doesn't really compare; no one is denying the house burned down. What's at stake is whether it was arson (murder, but I figured I'd carry the analogy to its logical conclusion). And if there's evidence on both sides, it should go to trial. It's not the grand jury's place to determine guilt or innocence, merely if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full trial.

 

[DrPizza]

Unless you're implying that Michael Brown is actually alive, this analogy doesn't really compare; no one is denying the house burned down. What's at stake is whether it was arson (murder, but I figured I'd carry the analogy to its logical conclusion). And if there's evidence on both sides, it should go to trial. It's not the grand jury's place to determine guilt or innocence, merely if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full trial.

The analogy holds in that the physical evidence contradicts what the witnesses said. So, let's say a witness said he was shot in the back. Regardless of his being dead, there were no entry wounds to the back. Thus, at that point, you have zero evidence in favor of trying the officer for a crime - it would be a complete waste of time given the other evidence, and a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Kadarin]

I guess we'll get to see more of this from the police there:

 

[SMOGZINN]

The analogy holds in that the physical evidence contradicts what the witnesses said. So, let's say a witness said he was shot in the back. Regardless of his being dead, there were no entry wounds to the back. Thus, at that point, you have zero evidence in favor of trying the officer for a crime - it would be a complete waste of time given the other evidence, and a miscarriage of justice.

Once again if it was that simple we would have had a 2 hour Grand Jury, not 3 months. That it took them this examine the case means they have a case to examine, and that means that a trial should take place to examine it, not giving a secret trial in which the prosecution, who is closely allied with the police force that is under scrutiny here, is the only one that gets to talk.

 

[Artorias]

I guess we'll get to see more of this from the police there:
SNIP

Good. Individuals who want to commit mass vandalism and partake in mass hooliganism can feel the wrath of justice. 100% warranted when its clear there is a large group who just cant protest peacefully.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Good. Individuals who want to commit mass vandalism and partake in mass hooliganism can feel the wrath of justice. 100% warranted when its clear there is a large group who just cant protest peacefully.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. - JFK

 

[Iron Woode]

Once again if it was that simple we would have had a 2 hour Grand Jury, not 3 months. That it took them this examine the case means they have a case to examine, and that means that a trial should take place to examine it, not giving a secret trial in which the prosecution, who is closely allied with the police force that is under scrutiny here, is the only one that gets to talk.

Grand Juries take time to examine evidence, hear testimony, etc.

The Grand Jury is required under the 5th amendment since he is charged with a Federal crime.

The Prosecution presents it's side to the Grand Jury. A minimum of 12 jurors must believe the Prosecution's position to go to trial.

Personally, I feel no trial is needed since the forensic evidence corroborates the testimony of the officer involved.

it's not rocket science, except to lefties who want to believe there is some kind of war by the police on minorities.

 

[Imp]

We will be ready:

Are those Koreans or Japanese?

I thought only Japanese did the headband thing, but I heard those were Korean businesses.

 

[HTFOff]

Are those Koreans or Japanese?

Self-sufficient Koreans.

 

[brianmanahan]

meh, who cares