MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #14

[reedus23]

Here is my question. How is a community supposed to have any faith in the state when the Governor makes a statement like “A vigorous prosecution must now be pursued.”?

But serious question, how is a community supposed to feel any fair investigation is being conducted if they are also saying, at the same time, they are fully behind prosecution. I just don't get that.

So you agree with the problem with that picture? I couldn't tell because you posed two completely different scenarios after that. To answer yours though, I personally think the way Nixon worded that was improper. I understand the message he was conveying to McCulloch but the average citizen will take it differently. A vigorous prosecution doesn't mean an indictment is even obtained. It just means do your job and do it vigorously and whatever the result, it is what it is. As for the other completely unrelated question, I don't understand it. I think what you are saying is that they don't want any investigation and simply want a prosecution. The community has no power to conduct an investigation. It probably comes from that sense of helplessness that the ones investigating are also saying they support the defendant.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/u...a-few-in-missouri-try-to-disrupt-traffic.html

Apparently the close-down-the-interstate schtick worked in St. Louis in 1999, so it's been rescheduled for Sept. 10 in order to bring all grievance resources to bear.

"In an interview on Sunday, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was among those arrested in St. Louis in 1999, said he was not against participating in a similar action, but only if it were organized properly. “We were very successful in 1999,” Mr. Sharpton said. “I will not call for something we cannot achieve. You’ve got to be very careful that your enthusiasm does not overstep the bounds of where it’s capable.”

Who was successful, Mr Sharpt*n---you? How does one measure success in this type of thing?
Did someone gain financially?
Were more people given perks, respect, advantages?

I really want to know in a measurable way what type of success can be expected from all this?

 

[TorisMom003]

As a middle class white woman, i have had unpleasant experiences with the police where i live. I,wanted to report an incident once


My hubby told me that under no circumstances should I report an LE.

He said they will have my license plate and everyone will be watching to see if they can get me for anything.

I am not impressed with LE having no complaints.

With the media there as long as they were, trying to get interviews from anyone they could about this case, I feel sure that if someone had a complaint about Wilson they would have shared that. Heck, they could even tell the media what their complaint is without giving their names. However, this has not happened. Not yet anyway. It will not surprise me to see someone come out and say all sorts of things against Wilson if the Grand Jury does not rule to indict.

MOO

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

So you agree with the problem with that picture? I couldn't tell because you posed two completely different scenarios after that. To answer yours though, I personally think the way Nixon worded that was improper. I understand the message he was conveying to McCulloch but the average citizen will take it differently. A vigorous prosecution doesn't mean an indictment is even obtained. It just means do your job and do it vigorously and whatever the result, it is what it is. As for the other completely unrelated question, I don't understand it. I think what you are saying is that they don't want any investigation and simply want a prosecution. The community has no power to conduct an investigation. It probably comes from that sense of helplessness that the ones investigating are also saying they support the defendant.

He should have said "A vigorous investigation"......and yes, there is a big difference between "investigation" and "prosecution" in my mind.

moo

 

[reedus23]

I understand what you're saying but here's the problem I have with your analogy: In your hypothetical, the person is lying down in the street, arms spread, obviously no weapon and is not resisiting. He is not in motion. MB continued to be in motion. Was he going to try to get away? Grab a bystander? Come back and assault OW? Reach in his pants and grab a weapon? OW had no idea what he was going to do next because he was still in motion. The person in your hypothetical was not. I see that as a big difference.

Oh, I agree with you 100%. It is a HUGE difference. That's why I said it was an extreme example, but it gets the point across on why I don't think it's as simple as saying MB punched the cop, it's justified. It also gets across the point that still questioning if the shooting was justified doesn't necessarily mean I'm in any way defending MB. He could have been completely at blame at the car and a situation COULD still arise where he should have been arrested and not shot. I was simply trying to convey how or why I don't think it is as simple as some suggest.

 

[reedus23]

Does the GJ handle the investigating or do they just review the evidence as presented by investigators?

The grand jury has subpoena power.

 

[tlcya]

Here is my question. How is a community supposed to have any faith in the St. Louis County PD and the St. Louis County DA to fully investigate their own when there are these statements of support or solidarity? I fully understand why they do and don't begrudge them the right to. But serious question, how is a community supposed to feel any fair investigation is being conducted if they are also saying, at the same time, they are fully behind the person being investigated. I just don't get that.

I will respond to yours with my own. How am I and others who share my POV to take those who say the system is corrupt top to bottom and can't be trusted to properly and fairly investigate this case seriously when they do not seem at all interested themselves in availing themselves of the readily available facts of this case? The worm turns both directions in other words.

By facts of this case I refer to the continued chants of "hands up don't shoot" when Piaget, and DJ both readily admit (now) that Michael Brown's hands were not above his head and he did not in fact say anything let alone "I am unarmed don't shoot." or "I surrender" which is what many still seem to believe happened in this case.

Or is it yet another instance where this case is just a symbol so accuracy matters not, its simply statement of a larger thing?

Please understand there is no snark intended in the above. I really do want to understand why you [ETA seem to] feel as you do. I am trying to stay focused on this case. If there is a problem with the general system or officials in the Ferguson area, that is going to be investigated, The feds are on the scene. Those concerns seem to be being taken seriously at this point.

When will these citizens be heading home and back to their lives?

 

[Linda7NJ]

The grand jury has subpoena power.

If I'm not mistaken there are investigative grand jury's and ones that just review what's presented...I could be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katydid23]

We're talking apples and oranges. It's only negative in your eyes (and others that agree with you). To them, it's just the fact that attention is drawn. It's just the fact that people have devote how many pages now to complaining about it? (and I say here symbolically of how it gets people's attention).

Again, anyone that thinks this is about this one incident is missing the point I believe. This one incident is just symbolic of the bigger picture in their opinion. Beyond that, I don't see how them believing they have seen enough to believe an indictment is warranted is any different than everyone here already coming to the conclusion that an indictment is not warranted. It's just their opinion and their take no different than what's being done here.

BBM

This is the part that is confusing. I know there are other related issues. And I think peaceful demonstrations concerning those issues are warranted and I support them. They could protest the lack of community policing and the tiny number of minority officers and perhaps request immediate use of cameras. [ altho I think the cameras have already been taken care of.]

However, spokespeople continue to hang their hats upon THIS SPECIFIC case and say the unrest will continue until OW is not only prosecuted, but found guilty. That is what bothers me. And no, I don't think it is the same thing as people saying let the process play out. He is innocent until proven guilty. And the investigation has not been completed. So there is a difference in asking for that part of the process to be completed, as opposed to saying, prematurely, that he should be arrested for murder. jmo

 

[noZme]

No, they don't do any investigating. LE does the initial investigation and the prosecutor's office also has investigators, ME, the labs and in this case the FBI is involved. The FBI would be reviewing all the evidence. It really is hard to hide things today with the media breathing down your neck...which is a good thing as long as their reports are responsibly written. jmo

I was under the impression that a Grand Jury in Georgia can request further investigation or documentation than what is initially presented. It may vary from state to state or I could be totally wrong. (It's happened before.)

 

[reedus23]

I see your point and do not disagree that a federal review of what appears to be a department that MAY have issues is bigger than this case. You worry that McCullough may influence the grand jury results to affect the decision in THIS case. I worry that THIS case will be decided based on a general mistrust of the department and police in general rather than THIS case's merits.

I get your POV. I hope you likewise get mine.

I think we agree that abuse or misuse of police power or any possible corruption in the justice system is a bad thing and warrants investigation. We also seem to agree that we have concerns about justice being done in this specific case. Where we seem to part ways is in our specific concerns about what injustice or justice could look like in this specific case.

I appreciate us being able to discuss those finer points where we do not see eye to eye in a civilized way here at WS. I wish more people could do so in general. I think it might pave the road to a better understanding and resolution for all.

ETA caps for emphasis not yelling.

Yepp. I 100% get yours. I would not want DW to be tried or convicted for an unjustified shooting if that shooting was, in fact, justified, simply because outside pressures have been brought to bear. Maybe I need to be more vocal on both sides of the equation because I think it's equally wrong for either side to reach or jump to any conclusions without the facts. I suppose the problem is I feel like I'm always responding to posts here and, well, there's not too many posts from the other side even posted here. If the good Mr. Shahid or whatever his name is came in here posting that he should be convicted without an investigation or GJ hearing I'd be just as quick to tell him he's off his rocker.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Found this

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/special-or-investigative-grand-jury.html

Sometimes, a grand jury will initiate an investigation on its own, rather than waiting for a prosecutor to bring evidence that's been developed by the police. Special, or investigative, grand juries typically operate when there's a suspicion of organized crime or political corruption. States may authorize separate grand juries to hear such cases, apart from the grand jury that hears cases brought by prosecutors; or the same grand jury may have both powers.


More at link


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[popsicle]

A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[SUP][1]

[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

 

[katydid23]

Do I think it could look like he was trying to pull him into his car? Sure, but that's just a perception. Do I think he actually was? No, I think that's as likely as a <modsnip> dude trying to jump through a window to get a gun. More likely, if at all, the cop was trying to simply grab MB to stop him from going anywhere.

ETA - My apologies mods. I'll say big dude to convey that message.

But I dont think he tried to 'jump through the window' to get the gun either. He probably didn't even initially each for the gun. I think he shoved the cop into the car and punched him, in an effort to get away, and escape the impending arrest. But OW probably reached for the gun and then it was too late, and MB now had to grapple with him over it.

 

[New1]

It's not a peaceful protest to block the highways. It's endangering the lives of themselves and others. They should all be arrested.

 

[reedus23]

I see your point and do not disagree that a federal review of what appears to be a department that MAY have issues is bigger than this case. You worry that McCullough may influence the grand jury results to affect the decision in THIS case. I worry that THIS case will be decided based on a general mistrust of the department and police in general rather than THIS case's merits.

I get your POV. I hope you likewise get mine.

I think we agree that abuse or misuse of police power or any possible corruption in the justice system is a bad thing and warrants investigation. We also seem to agree that we have concerns about justice being done in this specific case. Where we seem to part ways is in our specific concerns about what injustice or justice could look like in this specific case.

I appreciate us being able to discuss those finer points where we do not see eye to eye in a civilized way here at WS. I wish more people could do so in general. I think it might pave the road to a better understanding and resolution for all.

ETA caps for emphasis not yelling.

I know it seems to come off otherwise, but don't be surprised if ultimately we even agree on the bolded. I'll be the first to admit that maybe I shouldn't be so harsh about it because it's what we do here on WS on every case, but I will admit it bothers me to see conclusions being drawn when we really don't even know anything. Maybe it's because I live here and am defensive about it. I dunno. I just wish everyone everywhere would just wait and let it play itself out. Digging into positions (and I know not everyone here is dug in) is only going to lead to more of what we saw before. If the people of Ferguson would not dig in to the belief that DW is automatically guilty, maybe they wouldn't react so strongly when/if things come down otherwise. If the other side of the community wouldn't dig in with their belief that DW was justified when we don't know all of the facts, maybe the other side wouldn't feel the deck was stacked. Bottom line is we all just don't know and the only thing I can see happening from either side getting so entrenched is a repeat of a few weeks ago.

 

[reedus23]

With all due respect, I think that what I've boldened in your above post is incorrect. If it was reasonable for the officer to fear for his life then he can shoot.
Citizens have Stand Your Ground Laws in some states that allows for the use of force (and it doesn't have to be on your own premises/property) equal to or greater than the force used against you. Like it or not, that is the law in some states.
If someone choses to go up to an officer and punch them and then lays down to surrender, why wouldn't the officer think that this crazy person is just playing "possum" and is highly erratic & unpredictable?
It is reasonable to assume that anyone attacked will react back with force.

My only response is....my loved ones would be rich.

 

[reedus23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/u...a-few-in-missouri-try-to-disrupt-traffic.html

Apparently the close-down-the-interstate schtick worked in St. Louis in 1999, so it's been rescheduled for Sept. 10 in order to bring all grievance resources to bear.

"In an interview on Sunday, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was among those arrested in St. Louis in 1999, said he was not against participating in a similar action, but only if it were organized properly. “We were very successful in 1999,” Mr. Sharpton said. “I will not call for something we cannot achieve. You’ve got to be very careful that your enthusiasm does not overstep the bounds of where it’s capable.”

Yeah, that was the one I was referencing before. I think it was over minority contracts or something.

 

[bettybaby00]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article1337089.html

"Professor" Parcells is back, bankrupt but unbowed.

He likes to live dangerously doesn't he?

He's gonna get caught, I wouldn't be surprised if Baden didn't wanna espouse the "movable arms" theory.

:giggle:

 

[reedus23]

I found the location of and the vanishing bracelet fascinating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll be honest, I haven't paid any attention to the bracelet. I can't be for certain what is what when it comes to a bracelet or no bracelet so I'm just once again taking a wait and see approach. For all I know it's nothing related.