Obama and Ferguson

[abaris]

Ah, I see, the board needed a second Ferguson thread to make sure that Obama is at least blamed for something in all this confusion.

[Lek]

It's really terribly interesting, seeing what our two positions are here. I'm sitting here arguing for more transparency, so that the evidence can be seen and evaluated. In response, you tell me I have no right to make such arguments, as I haven't seen all the evidence.

... Yeah, that's kinda my point. Doesn't that strike you as a little fucked up?

I agree with your desire for transparency. Let's see what comes out in the days to come. What I don't want to see is an innocent man going through an unjustified trial in order to appease a bunch of people, who don't know what happened, screaming for an indictment regardless of the evidence to support it. Do you believe that there was a conspiracy among them to acquit Wilson? You and I don't know any of the jurors or of any specific reason to believe they would be dishonest. Basically, you want to subject Wilson to a long, stressful trial against his rights as a citizen because you believe, without evidence, that the trial is called for. Give me a break. Where does the problem lie here?

[The Grand Nudger]

What comes out? How do you think this works? It's done, it's over. Nothing that "comes out" after this point is going to be any more trustworthy than what went in. The honesty of those who made the decision doesn;t really need to be addressed, no conspiracy would be required. Did the state effectively act as his defense counsel in a position where they are generally interested in prosecution? Yeah, seems so, from what little we have. I want to make sure that hits home. The guy that would be throwing the book at you or me..if it were us.....softballed a cop and grilled those whose testimony might lead to a trial (but not necessarily a conviction - probably not a conviction...).

Surprised? I'm not. They just didn't want to take that chance - is how it looks to me.

[Faith No More]

I agree with your desire for transparency. Let's see what comes out in the days to come. What I don't want to see is an innocent man going through an unjustified trial in order to appease a bunch of people, who don't know what happened, screaming for an indictment regardless of the evidence to support it. Do you believe that there was a conspiracy among them to acquit Wilson? You and I don't know any of the jurors or of any specific reason to believe they would be dishonest. Basically, you want to subject Wilson to a long, stressful trial against his rights as a citizen because you believe, without evidence, that the trial is called for. Give me a break. Where does the problem lie here?

The problem lies in that you think that a young man being shot under suspicious circumstances isn't worthy of a trial because the offender was a cop.

Putting on a police badge doesn't mean that any act you commit isn't a crime. A cop is still a person, subject to the same flaws and poor decision making skills as the rest of us.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Evidently when presented with the evidence, the grand jury decided differently. What would you do if this 6'4", 270 lb teen (who had just committed a strong arm robbery) and has wrestled with you for your gun is coming back at you. He was obviously such a "nice, innocent" kid. Why don't we look at the evidence, as the grand jury did, before we make a decision. Officer Wilson now will have to quit his job and move his family to another city. Of course, he deserves it because he's a "white, adult male". So he only got what he already deserved.

I'm 6'4", have been since I was 16. My weight has varied a bit since then, but I've always been in exceptionally good physical condition - running, playing rugby, etc.

I've been subdued by police on more than one occasion. I was never shot at, let alone shot, by a cop.

This isn't about what Wilson deserves, it's about what the community should have had - a trial.

Boru

[Lek]

This isn't about what Wilson deserves, it's about what the community should have had - a trial.

Boru

I disagree. It is about what Wilson and the Brown family deserve. Wilson is the one charged here and his rights shouldn't be sacrificed because the community is upset and demanding a trial. He should go to trial if the evidence calls for it. And the business owners, every one I've seen interviewed so far has been black, have the right to not have their businesses vandalized or completely destroyed by people who don't know the facts. They are part of the community.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was disappointed in President Obama the other night when he gave his ten or so minute speech after the grand jury decision was announced in Ferguson. He rightfully stated his sadness over the death of Michael Brown and for his family, but he didn't even mention feeling any relief or concern for Officer Wilson and his family. In fact he made no mention at all of their situation. I wonder if he really cared.

Probably has something to do in the difference between the pulse rates of the two key figures in the case.

---

A dead body -is- sufficient supporting evidence. Do you think that you would have escaped trial on the same count? I doubt it...just imagine that it was a cops dead body -bzzzzzzzzzzzt- RIP

This is the crux of the matter.

---

It's really terribly interesting, seeing what our two positions are here. I'm sitting here arguing for more transparency, so that the evidence can be seen and evaluated. In response, you tell me I have no right to make such arguments, as I haven't seen all the evidence.

... Yeah, that's kinda my point. Doesn't that strike you as a little fucked up?

I agree with your desire for transparency. Let's see what comes out in the days to come. What I don't want to see is an innocent man going through an unjustified trial in order to appease a bunch of people, who don't know what happened, screaming for an indictment regardless of the evidence to support it. Do you believe that there was a conspiracy among them to acquit Wilson? You and I don't know any of the jurors or of any specific reason to believe they would be dishonest. Basically, you want to subject Wilson to a long, stressful trial against his rights as a citizen because you believe, without evidence, that the trial is called for. Give me a break. Where does the problem lie here?

The problem I have is the fact that police testimony is generally given greater weight in a court, even when outnumbered by eyewitnesses.

The implicit assumption seems to be that police wouldn't lie under oath, but the fact is that a code of silence does indeed exist amongst police who see fellow officers commit crimes.

In other words, the jurors may be as honest as the day is long, but will decide to not present charges based upon lies fed by the officer. Now, I grant that I don't know what was and wasn't a lie ... nor do you.

Myself, I'm of the opinion that any time there is an intentional killing done, whether by a civilian or under the color of authority, there should be a full-blooded adversarial trial, to ensure that all facts are aired publicly.

[Heywood]

-because this didn't go to a trial, it's unlikely that either you or I - or Esq (or the greater public) will be aware of that evidence. What has been released -does- look to be just a tad biased, just a tad stacked in the officers favor (as was expected by many, regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified).

It maybe that the reason the evidence is stacked in the officers favor is because the officer was indeed justified in shooting Michael Brown.

[DeistPaladin]

It maybe that the reason the evidence is stacked in the officers favor is because the officer was indeed justified in shooting Michael Brown.

Great! Bring it to trial and let the world see!

[Heywood]

It maybe that the reason the evidence is stacked in the officers favor is because the officer was indeed justified in shooting Michael Brown.

Great! Bring it to trial and let the world see!

Why should we do that? Just because you are mad?

The point of the grand jury is to determine if it probably true that the officer committed a crime. The grand jury determined it was probably not true the officer committed the crime. Why should we bring the officer to trial if it probably not true he committed a crime? Just to appease your anger? I'm sorry but your sensibilities are not a good enough reason to prosecute someone.