Grand Juror in Michael Brown Case Asking Court For Gag Order Removed

[reedus23]

You are asking officers to put their own lives on the line, every single day. But then taking away their legal right to defend themselves, and telling them they can just go to trial and try and prove their self defense was justified.

This is giving the power to the armed criminals to take a chance and pull their weapons in an effort to get away, because the cops won't want to. It empowers and emboldens the criminal element. And greatly weakens the resolve of the officers.

But doesn't such a position almost imply that there is too cozy of a relationship between LE and the local DA? Utilizing an independent prosecutor doesn't increase or decrease any rights under the law. The laws still say what the laws say. And I'm not suggesting that an independent prosecutor would send every single officer involved shooting to a grand jury. I am suggesting they would be the ones to make that determination of whether to send it or not.

It seems to me that taking these kind of cases away from the local DA would also help to strengthen the relationship between the DA and the local LE. I think you would agree with me, that if McCulloch wanted an indictment on DW, he could have gotten one, even if the majority of people don't believe it is warranted. So what happens if he does so? What does that do to the relationship between his office and LE? It seems like an independent prosecutor would help LE and the DA by eliminating that potential strain on the relationship.

 

[reedus23]

bbm
Is it poss, after LE & FBI interviews & pre-GJ testimony, she told asst pros,
Well, I was not entirely truthful in those interviews, but now/tomorrow/next wk I'll tell TT, TWT, & NBT Truth to G/J?

If that happened, should asst pros put her on the stand?
If they don't, do they give G/J transcripts/vids of previous interviews, but not allow her to tell now-'truthful' version?
Is that the right decision, or are they keeping the truth from being told?
If they do put her on stand, do they give G/J transcripts/vids of previous interviews, so G/J knows she told other versions?
Is that the right decision? How do asst pros know which version is truthful?

How can asst pros make the 'right' decision? IDK. JM2cts.


----------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, when did wit state ^this^? Link pls?
After LE & FBI interviews and before she testified before G/J?
or
After LE & FBI interviews and after she testified before G/J?

I don't know if you know the witness I'm talking about or read their testimony, but the proper thing to have done was not introduce anything. She saw nothing, so why call her? Just so that you can have her testify that she lied to police when she said she saw it and MB had his hands up? No, you don't introduce the statements and you don't introduce the testimony. In fact, we may never know it, but I wouldn't be surprised if McCulloch or his assistants receive some kind of reprimand for having done so. If I remember correctly, I think they had originally played the statements and it wasn't until days or weeks later that they put the witness on. I just don't know how or why you put on knowingly false evidence and then don't even clear it up for days or weeks.

 

[reedus23]

Maybe I am missing something from the conversation here. Why does having a special prosecutor take away a legal right for a LEO to defend themselves?

You're not. Under the law, the right to defend themselves does not change. I think what katy is saying though, and please correct me if I'm wrong katy because I don't want to put words in your mouth either, is that if an independent prosecutor is viewed by LEO's as being on a witch hunt, then it will effectively stop them from defending themselves out of fear of prosecution even if an independent prosecutor doesn't, in law or fact eliminate those rights. Not sure I'm making sense, but it's the difference between being effectively stopped out of fear versus being legally stopped by the law.

Follow up question on the independent prosecutor questions. McCulloch's office himself has various departments. Some Asst DA's handle taxes, some traffic, some misdemeanors and some felonies. What if McCulloch's office established a department that handled excessive force cases? Would that be viewed like an independent prosecutor or would that be something you think would sit better with LE?

 

[CoolJ]

You're not. Under the law, the right to defend themselves does not change. I think what katy is saying though, and please correct me if I'm wrong katy because I don't want to put words in your mouth either, is that if an independent prosecutor is viewed by LEO's as being on a witch hunt, then it will effectively stop them from defending themselves out of fear of prosecution even if an independent prosecutor doesn't, in law or fact eliminate those rights. Not sure I'm making sense, but it's the difference between being effectively stopped out of fear versus being legally stopped by the law.

Follow up question on the independent prosecutor questions. McCulloch's office himself has various departments. Some Asst DA's handle taxes, some traffic, some misdemeanors and some felonies. What if McCulloch's office established a department that handled excessive force cases? Would that be viewed like an independent prosecutor or would that be something you think would sit better with LE?

I look at it like this. If a LEO is to use lethal force it is because they are in fear for their lives. If the thought of "what will the special prosecutor think" outweighs the imminent fear they are responding to, then they shouldn't be responding lethally anyway. IMO

 

[rob]

Katydid, I agree with you, my feeling is that these 'peaceful' protesters, who seem to generate a lot of collateral damage, are just getting themselves less LE protection. But, since they are so mistreated by LE, I'm sure they probably don't want the services provided.
Maybe a win/win situation after all.

 

[katydid23]

Maybe I am missing something from the conversation here. Why does having a special prosecutor take away a legal right for a LEO to defend themselves?

This is what happened in LA. After the reforms, the cops did not want to have to pull their guns, even in in self defense because they did not trust their top brass or unions to protect them legally. So they backed way off. If they saw gangs hanging on the corner, they just drove on by. If they saw a loitering, they often ignored it. And entire swaths of LA are now 'owned' and controlled by the gangs.

So maybe, instead of using force to stop a fleeing felon, STL cops will just let them escape. It will seem a better alternative than being charged with murder and fighting it out in court.

That is what many want for Officer Wilson. He gets attacked in his car by a fleeing felon, shoots him as he doubles back . And the locals want him to face a 'special prosecutor' and criminal charges and to defend himself legally. Cops face this type of situation daily. They do not want to feel that they are going to be part of public witch hunt because of the current political volatility.

 

[katydid23]

I look at it like this. If a LEO is to use lethal force it is because they are in fear for their lives. If the thought of "what will the special prosecutor think" outweighs the imminent fear they are responding to, then they shouldn't be responding lethally anyway. IMO

That is easy for you to say because you are not the one facing possible prosecution. Believe me, 'what will the special prosecutor' think is on the minds of most of the officers as they go about their shift.

Here is what you are missing. The choice is up to the officer if he wants to put himself into the position of possibly facing that imminent threat. Notice how the NYPD backed WAY OFF for a week or so? No tickets, no arrests.

If a cruiser sees 2 teens loitering in a dark parking lot, do they go on over and check it out? Maybe not, if they don't feel comfortable pulling weapons in self defense. Why even put one self in that position if it might end up with jail and pending murder charges. Better to just drive on and let them break into a few cars.

 

[katydid23]

You're not. Under the law, the right to defend themselves does not change. I think what katy is saying though, and please correct me if I'm wrong katy because I don't want to put words in your mouth either, is that if an independent prosecutor is viewed by LEO's as being on a witch hunt, then it will effectively stop them from defending themselves out of fear of prosecution even if an independent prosecutor doesn't, in law or fact eliminate those rights. Not sure I'm making sense, but it's the difference between being effectively stopped out of fear versus being legally stopped by the law.

Follow up question on the independent prosecutor questions. McCulloch's office himself has various departments. Some Asst DA's handle taxes, some traffic, some misdemeanors and some felonies. What if McCulloch's office established a department that handled excessive force cases? Would that be viewed like an independent prosecutor or would that be something you think would sit better with LE?

If you set up a 'special department' of the DA, specifically to handle 'excessive force' cases, then this department will feel compelled to justify their existence. And the only way to do that is by prosecuting some cases. Sounds like a nightmare for the PD.


The cops won't stop defending themselves, but they might stop seeking out situations where they might need to. Why go into a dark parking lot at 3 am to investigate a suspicious car if it might mean that you will be fighting the special prosecutor over it?

 

[reedus23]

If you set up a 'special department' of the DA, specifically to handle 'excessive force' cases, then this department will feel compelled to justify their existence. And the only way to do that is by prosecuting some cases. Sounds like a nightmare for the PD.


The cops won't stop defending themselves, but they might stop seeking out situations where they might need to. Why go into a dark parking lot at 3 am to investigate a suspicious car if it might mean that you will be fighting the special prosecutor over it?

I see what you're saying. Really do. And I agree with you completely on the issue of a department within the existing DA's office.

As to your question, though, don't they face the same dilemma now, only with the existing DA? Even as things are now, when they investigate that car and end up having to use deadly force, don't they still face the potential of criminal prosecution if they were wrong in doing so? The only thing that an independent prosecutor does is eliminate any conflict or bias, whether real or perceived. Do you see what I'm saying?

My other question is, why would LE hold the perception that someone is unfairly looking over their shoulder because an independent prosecutor is handling a case instead of the local DA? The strong resistance to it gives the perception that they have something to hide or that the local DA is more lenient on bad acts. I'm not saying that the perception is accurate. But it is a perception. So is the answer to ignore the fact that some hold those beliefs? It may very well be. I don't know. It just seems to me, unjustified use of lethal force is unjustified use of lethal force whether it's a special prosecutor or the local DA and that is what leads to me scratching my head about, well why is LE so adamant about the local DA handling matters. Not sure if I'm explaining it well why that raises a red flag so I'll stop blabbering.

 

[K_Z]

I don't think every police shooting should require being brought to a GJ or a special prosecutor. The vast majority are so incredibly clear cut that it was a justified shoot (as in Darren Wilson's case, IMO), that it is frankly abusive that any officer should have to fear what happened to Darren Wilson. There should be an investigative body (similar to Internal Affairs) charged with investigating the shooting circumstances, and making that available to the public. IMO, it's absurd to make it a requirement that *every* LEO shooting has to be brought to a civilian GJ each and every time. This guarantees that there will be some completely justified shootings that end up being indicted and prosecuted because the civilian GJ members are overzealous and misguided. That's just dead wrong, IMO. (No pun intended.) Instead of a special prosecutor, why not have the internal affairs division of another police department investigate? Why design the process to insinuate that there is a crime because a LEO shot someone, and criminal charges evaluated, every single time?

Special prosecutors are not a panacea for avoiding bias and influence, either-- these are highly politicized appointments. Sometimes we see controversial, angry, and vindictive "high profile" prosecutors like Angela Corey come in and make the situation 1000x worse than what it was to start with, IMO. The whole special prosecutor thing, IMO, is more fraught with bias and political influence than the local DA, by a long shot. These "plum" high profile special prosecutors are often chosen because they are positioning to run for state AG, etc.-- NOT because they are the "best" or most "neutral" person to investigate the case, and often there is a tremendous pressure on them to "get a conviction no matter what" to justify bringing in the special prosecutor in the first place.

IMO, there is a certain amount of justified shooting police officers as a group will have to do in the course of doing their jobs. Most will never fire their weapons at all, but I never want them to hesitate to shoot when it's justified-- to stop a dangerous fleeing suspect, to defend themselves, or defend others. We pay them (not nearly enough!) to carry that weapon and do their jobs, just as we do the military. It's sickening and infuriating that the current political climate, and social behavior of certain groups of people, are motivating LEO's to engage in work slowdowns, and less assertively doing their jobs protecting the law abiding public. Is that what we want?? No police at all? Well, then let's set up sacrificial zones with no LE, and let whoever wants to, go live there and suffer the consequences. Not me, thank you. I want a robust, moral and ethical police force that is not afraid to police (especially during riots). I'm not afraid of that, but maybe that's because I'm law abiding, and have military experience.

I'm very sorry DA McCulloch even felt the pressure to have to bring this case to a GJ in the first place. This never should have been brought to a GJ, IMO-- an internal affairs investigation would have been sufficient, were it not for the inappropriate political involvement of the Justice department, the inappropriate biased reporting by media outlets, and the unjustified (IMO) civilian riots. Topped off with an (IMO) inappropriate lawsuit from a whiny GJ'r, a ridiculous "do over" request, and yet another investigation. SMH. Sick and sad.

 

[Minette]

I think the whole gentle giant mantra was regurgitated by DW supporters more than MB supporters. Regardless, I understand what you're saying about pressures and that's why I said it would take cajones but he still should have done what he felt was right if he didn't think it should go to a GJ. Like I said, no matter how hard Nixon or others came down on him, he would never lose an election in St. Louis County because of that. I think the prosecution bent over backwards to neutralize those with credibility that claimed his hands were up. That is the reason you put on a witness who readily admitted her statements were lies...before she ever testified. Surely, if she's making it up all the MB camp is making it up.

The Justice Department is another issue. There is not a single doubt in my mind that they were needed. Maybe not insofar as the specific shooting of MB by DW goes. But in the much larger picture, not a single doubt in my mind. Some of those changes are being made already and others are yet to come. But I'd agree...I've seen nothing credible to suggest that the shooting itself was racially motivated. Plenty of rumors and speculation, but nothing I'd consider credible at this point.

Really? The whole 'gentle giant' thing was part of the original narrative, trying to make us believe that Mike Brown was this innocent young kid, skipping along on the way to grandma's house when he was brutally executed in broad daylight by a racist killer cop. It's part of why I jumped into this case, thinking 'OMG police brutality!' and then I started to learn the facts, saw the video of MB shoving around a tiny old man who was objecting to him stealing cigars and..... there is nothing that angers me more than having someone piss on me and try to tell me it's raining. (Sorry to be crude.) When the DoJ jumped into this case from very early on it gave the appearance that there was something behind the 'executed in broad daylight for simply being black' narrative. Well, I don't like 'narratives,' and I don't like the notion that there are overriding issues that are more important than the actual truth which is therefore OK to be stretched.

No. If the FACTS support an act of police brutality/racism then bring on the DoJ and bring on the full public scrutiny of media outrage, but don't try to play me by trying to say that a guy who punched a cop and tried to take his weapon is somehow a civil rights martyr. Because I'm old enough to remember ACTUAL civil rights martyrs who were beaten, arrested and lynched for *peaceful* demonstrations and civil resistance. To equate Michael Brown to someone like that and try to make the burning & looting of Ferguson into peaceful demonstrations insults my intelligence and loses my sympathy entirely. And there it is, it's just my opinion, but OK, I'm angry about the manipulation at play here and the demeaning of true martyrs of the civil rights movement, so sue me.

 

[reedus23]

I look at it like this. If a LEO is to use lethal force it is because they are in fear for their lives. If the thought of "what will the special prosecutor think" outweighs the imminent fear they are responding to, then they shouldn't be responding lethally anyway. IMO

Trust me. I completely get it. Heck, I got it when DW testified about how he literally went through all of his options and the matrix or whatever he talked about. Having said that, really, all they have to do is continue to do that same thing and they'd be fine as long as they are good at their job and have received good training. As long as the training is right, I personally, do not think it is an issue.

 

[katydid23]

I see what you're saying. Really do. And I agree with you completely on the issue of a department within the existing DA's office.

As to your question, though, don't they face the same dilemma now, only with the existing DA? Even as things are now, when they investigate that car and end up having to use deadly force, don't they still face the potential of criminal prosecution if they were wrong in doing so? The only thing that an independent prosecutor does is eliminate any conflict or bias, whether real or perceived. Do you see what I'm saying?

My other question is, why would LE hold the perception that someone is unfairly looking over their shoulder because an independent prosecutor is handling a case instead of the local DA? The strong resistance to it gives the perception that they have something to hide or that the local DA is more lenient on bad acts. I'm not saying that the perception is accurate. But it is a perception. So is the answer to ignore the fact that some hold those beliefs? It may very well be. I don't know. It just seems to me, unjustified use of lethal force is unjustified use of lethal force whether it's a special prosecutor or the local DA and that is what leads to me scratching my head about, well why is LE so adamant about the local DA handling matters. Not sure if I'm explaining it well why that raises a red flag so I'll stop blabbering.

I undertand what you are trying to ask. And I think I can answer, but it might be awkward and unclear.

I do not think it means that cops have 'something to hide.' But i think it has to do with the difference in prevailing attitudes. The possible reasons that the grand juries rarely indict officers in shoot outs is that they do have working relationships with them and trust their judgment and integrity after already working with them on other cases. Also there has been a prevailing attitude that the cops are defending themselves and usually have to make a split second decision, and are given the benefit of the doubt.

But the way the publics prevailing attitude has now been ginned up by the likes of Sharpton and Occupy, the benefit of doubt will swing to the criminals. If the victim has a gun it will assume to have been planted. It won't matter if he has a criminal history of assaulting an officer and having illegal weapons. THat will be seen as irrelevant and all that will matter is that a white officer shot ANOTHER young black male. The special prosecutor will be under enormous pressure to indict.

 

[reedus23]

I don't think every police shooting should require being brought to a GJ or a special prosecutor. The vast majority are so incredibly clear cut that it was a justified shoot (as in Darren Wilson's case, IMO), that it is frankly abusive that any officer should have to fear what happened to Darren Wilson. There should be an investigative body (similar to Internal Affairs) charged with investigating the shooting circumstances, and making that available to the public. IMO, it's absurd to make it a requirement that *every* LEO shooting has to be brought to a civilian GJ each and every time. This guarantees that there will be some completely justified shootings that end up being indicted and prosecuted because the civilian GJ members are overzealous and misguided. That's just dead wrong, IMO. (No pun intended.) Instead of a special prosecutor, why not have the internal affairs division of another police department investigate? Why design the process to insinuate that there is a crime because a LEO shot someone, and criminal charges evaluated, every single time?

Special prosecutors are not a panacea for avoiding bias and influence, either-- these are highly politicized appointments. Sometimes we see controversial, angry, and vindictive "high profile" prosecutors like Angela Corey come in and make the situation 1000x worse than what it was to start with, IMO. The whole special prosecutor thing, IMO, is more fraught with bias and political influence than the local DA, by a long shot. These "plum" high profile special prosecutors are often chosen because they are positioning to run for state AG, etc.-- NOT because they are the "best" or most "neutral" person to investigate the case, and often there is a tremendous pressure on them to "get a conviction no matter what" to justify bringing in the special prosecutor in the first place.

IMO, there is a certain amount of justified shooting police officers as a group will have to do in the course of doing their jobs. Most will never fire their weapons at all, but I never want them to hesitate to shoot when it's justified-- to stop a dangerous fleeing suspect, to defend themselves, or defend others. We pay them (not nearly enough!) to carry that weapon and do their jobs, just as we do the military. It's sickening and infuriating that the current political climate, and social behavior of certain groups of people, are motivating LEO's to engage in work slowdowns, and less assertively doing their jobs protecting the law abiding public. Is that what we want?? No police at all? Well, then let's set up sacrificial zones with no LE, and let whoever wants to, go live there and suffer the consequences. Not me, thank you. I want a robust, moral and ethical police force that is not afraid to police (especially during riots). I'm not afraid of that, but maybe that's because I'm law abiding, and have military experience.

I'm very sorry DA McCulloch even felt the pressure to have to bring this case to a GJ in the first place. This never should have been brought to a GJ, IMO-- an internal affairs investigation would have been sufficient, were it not for the inappropriate political involvement of the Justice department, the inappropriate biased reporting by media outlets, and the unjustified (IMO) civilian riots. Topped off with an (IMO) inappropriate lawsuit from a whiny GJ'r, a ridiculous "do over" request, and yet another investigation. SMH. Sick and sad.

I don't think every one should be taken to a GJ either. That's a waste of resources and putting an awful lot of good cops through an unnecessary evil. I might disagree with you about DW's case being clear cut, but I would agree that probably a majority of them are. I also agree with you that there should be a review board separate from internal affairs that reviews all LEO shootings and that board needs to be separate and apart from the local LE. They can determine whether it warrants referral to the independent prosecutor and the independent prosecutor can still have the discretion to determine if it should or should not go before a GJ. That process is no different than what we have now, just who is doing it.

Using another agency was another thought I had had previously. I thought if it was just automatic that all such cases go to the State it would eliminate some of the perceptions. On those few cases that are deemed questionable, they can maybe be referred to the Attorney General's office instead of the local DA? And instead of a special prosecutor. I think it would be a positive step, even though I do think if there is just an independent department that is assigned to automatically investigate and in the rare instances prosecute, there is no stigma attached to it. It's just an automatic deal.

I think I also agree with you about special prosecutors in the sense you are talking about them. I try to use independent prosecutor instead of special prosecutor because they are not assigned to just this case. They are just a prosecutor that is there, full time, when needed. Not appointed for a particular case.

I think every person would agree with you about not wanting any LE to hesitate if they have to use lethal force under the right circumstances. The problem that I think some are trying to work on are two fold. One, how to balance that with ensuring that lives aren't unnecessarily lost, even a robbery suspects. Two, the concern that those instances where it is unjustified will never be uncovered because of the system that is in place, which isn't an indictment on LE because that is outside of their control.

As for the rest, we will just have to disagree because I see glaring problems with how McCulloch and his office handled this case. It actually sickens me because it is the only glimpse of what happens inside of grand juries that I have ever seen and if his office were to conduct business in the same manner in every other case they have, they would NEVER get an indictment. That frustrates and scares me being a resident here.

 

[reedus23]

Really? The whole 'gentle giant' thing was part of the original narrative, trying to make us believe that Mike Brown was this innocent young kid, skipping along on the way to grandma's house when he was brutally executed in broad daylight by a racist killer cop. It's part of why I jumped into this case, thinking 'OMG police brutality!' and then I started to learn the facts, saw the video of MB shoving around a tiny old man who was objecting to him stealing cigars and..... there is nothing that angers me more than having someone piss on me and try to tell me it's raining. (Sorry to be crude.) When the DoJ jumped into this case from very early on it gave the appearance that there was something behind the 'executed in broad daylight for simply being black' narrative. Well, I don't like 'narratives,' and I don't like the notion that there are overriding issues that are more important than the actual truth which is therefore OK to be stretched.

No. If the FACTS support an act of police brutality/racism then bring on the DoJ and bring on the full public scrutiny of media outrage, but don't try to play me by trying to say that a guy who punched a cop and tried to take his weapon is somehow a civil rights martyr. Because I'm old enough to remember ACTUAL civil rights martyrs who were beaten, arrested and lynched for *peaceful* demonstrations and civil resistance. To equate Michael Brown to someone like that and try to make the burning & looting of Ferguson into peaceful demonstrations insults my intelligence and loses my sympathy entirely. And there it is, it's just my opinion, but OK, I'm angry about the manipulation at play here and the demeaning of true martyrs of the civil rights movement, so sue me.

I would be willing to make a bet that if one were able to go back and calculate the number of times the phrase "gentle giant" was used by MB supporters versus the number of times it was referenced by DW supporters, the DW supporters would win by a landslide. I do get people's objections to unarmed black teenager and how that puts a certain slant to the story even if it is factually accurate. However, I don't recall anyone describing it as him innocently skipping his way to grandma's house. I think that the former statement is made and then others embellish it. Myself, being familiar with the area, while not knowing about the robbery, was not surprised one bit that he had had issues with the law in the past, nor that he was 420 friendly or things along those lines.

I do also get what you're saying about the appearance created by the DOJ jumping in and that's a tough deal. I think the DOJ was needed for numerous reasons. I obviously don't think that they were needed because DW was a sheet wearing member of the KKK who decided to kill a black kid that day, but beyond DW, I know myself with no room for any doubt that there are issues in north county that probably do need the attention of the DOJ overall. So while it gives a bad appearance on the one hand when looking strictly at DW's case, it is something that was needed on the whole. If talking about appearances, my bigger problem comes from the rhetoric spoken at times by others such as Crump or Sharpton. I think any points they may ever make are lost amongst the rest of the rhetoric.

As for the rest, no one holds it against you to have your own opinion. We're all entitled to that and I just expressed some of mine.

 

[reedus23]

I undertand what you are trying to ask. And I think I can answer, but it might be awkward and unclear.

I do not think it means that cops have 'something to hide.' But i think it has to do with the difference in prevailing attitudes. The possible reasons that the grand juries rarely indict officers in shoot outs is that they do have working relationships with them and trust their judgment and integrity after already working with them on other cases. Also there has been a prevailing attitude that the cops are defending themselves and usually have to make a split second decision, and are given the benefit of the doubt.

But the way the publics prevailing attitude has now been ginned up by the likes of Sharpton and Occupy, the benefit of doubt will swing to the criminals. If the victim has a gun it will assume to have been planted. It won't matter if he has a criminal history of assaulting an officer and having illegal weapons. THat will be seen as irrelevant and all that will matter is that a white officer shot ANOTHER young black male. The special prosecutor will be under enormous pressure to indict.

Thanks katy. And that's why I think both sides need to take a step back, take ownership of their shortcomings and together come to an answer that will likely be agreeable and disagreeable at the same time to both sides. No LEO should be unjustly tried or convicted but neither should a LEO that has done wrong be unjustly allowed to avoid the consequences.

I am completely against any form of witch hunt but at the same time, it seems to me there should be a reasonable answer that involves a more objective review and decision making process on a case by case basis.

 

[K_Z]

Really? The whole 'gentle giant' thing was part of the original narrative, trying to make us believe that Mike Brown was this innocent young kid, skipping along on the way to grandma's house when he was brutally executed in broad daylight by a racist killer cop. It's part of why I jumped into this case, thinking 'OMG police brutality!' and then I started to learn the facts, saw the video of MB shoving around a tiny old man who was objecting to him stealing cigars and..... there is nothing that angers me more than having someone piss on me and try to tell me it's raining. (Sorry to be crude.) When the DoJ jumped into this case from very early on it gave the appearance that there was something behind the 'executed in broad daylight for simply being black' narrative. Well, I don't like 'narratives,' and I don't like the notion that there are overriding issues that are more important than the actual truth which is therefore OK to be stretched.

No. If the FACTS support an act of police brutality/racism then bring on the DoJ and bring on the full public scrutiny of media outrage, but don't try to play me by trying to say that a guy who punched a cop and tried to take his weapon is somehow a civil rights martyr. Because I'm old enough to remember ACTUAL civil rights martyrs who were beaten, arrested and lynched for *peaceful* demonstrations and civil resistance. To equate Michael Brown to someone like that and try to make the burning & looting of Ferguson into peaceful demonstrations insults my intelligence and loses my sympathy entirely. And there it is, it's just my opinion, but OK, I'm angry about the manipulation at play here and the demeaning of true martyrs of the civil rights movement, so sue me.

Wow-- really eloquent post, minette. I agree with all of it. Thank you.

 

[K_Z]

I would be willing to make a bet that if one were able to go back and calculate the number of times the phrase "gentle giant" was used by MB supporters versus the number of times it was referenced by DW supporters, the DW supporters would win by a landslide.

Respectfully snipped for focus.

I agree. Many were so incredulous at the "gentle giant" phrase that was so incongruous with the reality and truth of this man, that the term was widely mocked and used as parody and sarcasm.

As to the "black, unarmed teenager" meme, well, Jessica Lane Chambers is persistently being referred to as a "woman" in media articles. Contrast that with MB being portrayed over and over as a "teenager". They were the same age, both young adults, which is a more accurate term that is also neutral. But neutrality is seldom the goal in situations like these-- the "teenager" meme was deliberately chosen to represent MB as more "child like". There was never any reason at all for news reports to refer to the race of either MB or DW-- that was part of whipping up a false racist theme, too. "Unarmed" was chosen to push the unequal use of force theme, as though police must always be certain the ones they shoot at are indeed armed with guns, and that "equality" must exist between criminal suspects and police. This manner of writing and reporting is highly manipulative, and not even trying to be neutral. Sadly, lots of people buy into the bias and slant as truth and objectivity.

A police officer shot and killed a criminal suspect who first robbed a store, assaulted a shopkeeper, assaulted an officer in his patrol car, tried to take the officer's gun, fled, and then re-approached the officer he assaulted.

If that had been the correctly and responsibly reported story by the media, none of us would even know MB's name, nor Officer Wilson's, as it should be, IMO. The large scale riots, burning and looting probably wouldn't have happened. The DOJ wouldn't have inserted themselves inappropriately. And the whiny GJ'r Doe would not have been asked to agree to service and oaths he or she clearly didn't understand or desire.

 

[reedus23]

Respectfully snipped for focus.

I agree. Many were so incredulous at the "gentle giant" phrase that was so incongruous with the reality and truth of this man, that the term was widely mocked and used as parody and sarcasm.

As to the "black, unarmed teenager" meme, well, Jessica Lane Chambers is persistently being referred to as a "woman" in media articles. Contrast that with MB being portrayed over and over as a "teenager". They were the same age, both young adults, which is a more accurate term that is also neutral. But neutrality is seldom the goal in situations like these-- the "teenager" meme was deliberately chosen to represent MB as more "child like". There was never any reason at all for news reports to refer to the race of either MB or DW-- that was part of whipping up a false racist theme, too. "Unarmed" was chosen to push the unequal use of force theme, as though police must always be certain the ones they shoot at are indeed armed with guns, and that "equality" must exist between criminal suspects and police. This manner of writing and reporting is highly manipulative, and not even trying to be neutral. Sadly, lots of people buy into the bias and slant as truth and objectivity.



If that had been the correctly and responsibly reported story by the media, none of us would even know MB's name, nor Officer Wilson's, as it should be, IMO. The large scale riots, burning and looting probably wouldn't have happened. The DOJ wouldn't have inserted themselves inappropriately. And the whiny GJ'r Doe would not have been asked to agree to service and oaths he or she clearly didn't understand or desire.

I don't know if you came up with the quoted portion but that is almost word for word what I criticized the FPD and County PD for not issuing as a statement when this first happened. They should have gotten out in front of it. Like them or not, St. Louis City does a much better job of getting out in front of such cases, though I might be biased in that regard. That also might be because they are involved in more than a small municipality like Ferguson. Ironically, I was blasted for thinking that should have been what was presented to the media.

I don't know why, but I still don't have a problem with the reporting as it was but I guess that's because I don't take it as anything more than a factual recitation of what happened. I do see how it can stir emotions in others. I also would not obviously have a problem with the way you quoted it, though I would have probably included a word such as purportedly or allegedly in there.

I think there still would have been rioting. I don't know if it would have extended nationwide though. The area up north has been a powder keg ready to blow up. Even if you don't believe the version, there are some that were there that truly believe they saw MB surrendering. From there, you are going to have a large group that want to believe that no matter what. I think it still would have been ugly but much more localized and doubt it would have garnered as much national attention.

As for the DOJ...they were needed up there. Guaranteed. But on what I personally think are the more important issues that are bigger than just a single case of DW and MB.

As for the grand juror, I'm not sure I follow the strong feelings. They seem to fully understand or they wouldn't have gone the whole Doe process of a lawsuit. Simply asking a federal court to make a determination of what he/she can say. If they were as whiny and lacked the understanding or desire, I would think they would have simply shown up on a TV show instead of going to the court's for clarification first.

 

[Elley Mae]

Respectfully snipped for focus.

I agree. Many were so incredulous at the "gentle giant" phrase that was so incongruous with the reality and truth of this man, that the term was widely mocked and used as parody and sarcasm.

As to the "black, unarmed teenager" meme, well, Jessica Lane Chambers is persistently being referred to as a "woman" in media articles. Contrast that with MB being portrayed over and over as a "teenager". They were the same age, both young adults, which is a more accurate term that is also neutral. But neutrality is seldom the goal in situations like these-- the "teenager" meme was deliberately chosen to represent MB as more "child like". There was never any reason at all for news reports to refer to the race of either MB or DW-- that was part of whipping up a false racist theme, too. "Unarmed" was chosen to push the unequal use of force theme, as though police must always be certain the ones they shoot at are indeed armed with guns, and that "equality" must exist between criminal suspects and police. This manner of writing and reporting is highly manipulative, and not even trying to be neutral. Sadly, lots of people buy into the bias and slant as truth and objectivity.



If that had been the correctly and responsibly reported story by the media, none of us would even know MB's name, nor Officer Wilson's, as it should be, IMO. The large scale riots, burning and looting probably wouldn't have happened. The DOJ wouldn't have inserted themselves inappropriately. And the whiny GJ'r Doe would not have been asked to agree to service and oaths he or she clearly didn't understand or desire.

Right On :toastred: