MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #16

[Elley Mae]

I'll second that.

 

[SStarr33]

OK everyone...that is a wrap....SStarr has officially WON the Internet for today!!!

LOL, it's true and really kind of sad when you think about it. The race hustlers could care less about who gets hurt in all of this (and many have already been hurt physically and financially)

For them, it's all about the millions of Benjamins they stand to gain.

 

[Lovejac]

:blowkiss: tlcya

I'll be seeing you on the less volatile threads. Thanks for your informed and always polite prespective.

 

[Lovejac]

OK everyone...that is a wrap....SStarr has officially WON the Internet for today!!! :loveyou::yourock:arty:

It's funny 'cause it's true!

 

[LambChop]

Sorrel, Here is what we were agreeing on : [ no one said it never happens]



The purpose of the indictment is to get the green light for an arrest. The purpose for the grand jury hearings is for the prosecutor to show the jurors the evidence and they decide if there is cause for an arrest. If so, there is a True Bill, or an indictment. So yes, it is backwards to arrest someone before the indictment. jmo


ETA:


indictment
n. a charge of a felony (serious crime) voted by a Grand Jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). To bring an indictment the Grand Jury will not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried




[Nobody said it never happens in the backwards way.]

In some cases people are arrested on "related" charges and held. Charging a person with murder requires the Grand Jury's decision on how the person should be charged, or if they should be charged at all. Officer Wilson killed MB in the line of duty. If OW claims he believed his life was in danger the law protects him from being arrested. The Grand Jury has to decide if it was justified. jmo

 

[Klood-N]

Fam attorney today at press conference (notice Shahid start the clapping):

Reporter: "So you're saying there were no facial injuries to the officer

Attorney: "I'm not going to say that

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z92hSA1Xe7Q

More target circling language like our discussion earlier today

 

[hambirg]

They are not all rioting. They are not all wanting OW dead. They are not all horrible. I don't really like the term they. I don't like grouping people together as one unit. There are good people and bad people there. There are people who want justice and people who want revenge, however there is no they. To lump everyone together is obtuse IMO

But it is a tacit agreement. . .consent by omission. If not everyone there agrees with the rioting and death threats, then they should leave and have their own separate peaceful protest. The very nature of a protest is many people coming together, en masse, to be heard as a single voice.

I don't doubt that there were some who showed up for legitimate reasons. But when things started getting ugly, they should have spoke up or left. To continue is consent by omission.

MOO

 

[CHERIE.T]

About the press conference, held today by the parents, flanked by Shahid: Was this picture meant to be seen by the Grand Jurors? Are they trying to intimidate them?

DId you get a good look see at the photo sstarr posted above?
I can't figure out what the man in the red
shirt had around his neck?
Press passes? idk

 

[reedus23]

The purpose of the indictment is to get the green light for an arrest. The purpose for the grand jury hearings is for the prosecutor to show the jurors the evidence and they decide if there is cause for an arrest. If so, there is a True Bill, or an indictment. So yes, it is backwards to arrest someone before the indictment. jmo


ETA:


indictment
n. a charge of a felony (serious crime) voted by a Grand Jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). To bring an indictment the Grand Jury will not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried

Thanks katy. So I understand...people are never arrested for felonies before a grand jury hands down an indictment. Many thanks.

 

[popsicle]

Among those who spoke was Anthony Gray, an attorney for the Brown family.

“Darren Wilson should be arrested, he should be booked, he should be fingerprinted and he should be photographed,” Gray says.

The Rev. Carlton Lee with the local chapter of the National Action Network agreed.

“Either we need to redefine what probable cause means, and say that police are not subject to it, or we arrest officers right away, just as we would with any other person accused of committing a crime,” he says.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/09...son-police-officer-in-michael-brown-shooting/

https://twitter.com/brettblumekmox/status/509357101664071680/photo/1

 

[CHERIE.T]

PROTESTORS purposely come together AS A GROUP, to create leverage. The purpose of a group protest is to meld together. So I think the term "they' is quite applicable. jmo

Of course it is>> unless one is trying to ....ykwim.

 

[reedus23]

Gentle Giant was used in the eulogy at the funeral. You can't fault the media for reporting this fact.

“Michael Brown’s blood is crying from the ground. Crying for vengeance, crying for justice.” Brown’s great uncle, Pastor Charles Ewing, said in the eulogy.

“We called him the gentle giant. We called him Big Mike. We called him Mike Mike. He said one day the world will know my name.”



http://nypost.com/2014/08/25/hundreds-line-up-to-attend-michael-browns-funeral/

Yeah I have no problem with family saying as much. To them, he probably was. Obviously, as outsiders looking in and also looking at a bigger picture, we will rightfully look at more than just that. As an aside, I'm not sure what one would expect to be said during a eulogy "Today we put to rest a loved one. We called him a piece of you know what." It was a eulogy after all.

 

[CHERIE.T]

You asked for the link and I provided it that proves Mr. Brown would NOT have received a suspended sentence as you claimed nor would it be wiped from his record. A strong-arm robbery DOES involve a use of a weapon. The security video DID capture Mr. Brown physically assaulting and intimidating the store clerk.

I think we all should stick to the facts of this case and not invent our own version of facts.

JMO

bbm
Agree and am surprised this is allowed on the thread.

 

[CHERIE.T]

I just threw up in my mouth. :sick:

I'll join you. uke:

 

[TheDuchess]

Among those who spoke was Anthony Gray, an attorney for the Brown family.

“Darren Wilson should be arrested, he should be booked, he should be fingerprinted and he should be photographed,” Gray says.

The Rev. Carlton Lee with the local chapter of the National Action Network agreed.

“Either we need to redefine what probable cause means, and say that police are not subject to it, or we arrest officers right away, just as we would with any other person accused of committing a crime,” he says.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/09...son-police-officer-in-michael-brown-shooting/

https://twitter.com/brettblumekmox/status/509357101664071680/photo/1

If we booked, photographed and fingerprinted every LEO that was accused of a crime in the line of duty we would run out of ink. And guess what else...we'd run out of people willing to be LEOs.

 

[CHERIE.T]

How's this instead?

The people who are lying about the circumstances of the MB shooting need to stop lying.

The rioters need to stop rioting.

The lawyers need to stop obfuscating and lying.

The activists and instigators need to stop lying, calling for OW's death, and tossing out inflammatory rhetoric.

The people calling for OW's immediate arrest need to stop doing that.

The people calling for OW's death need to stop doing that.

The people threatening to burn down the city if OW isn't indicted need to stop doing that.

^^^^^^^^ that! :tyou:

 

[oh_gal]

Don't forget jaywalking or its equivalent.

He was not "jaywalking", which is attempting to cross a street ("cross" is important, here). He was walking down the middle of the street. "Swaggering" or "sauntering" might be more applicable terms.

For your convenience, I am providing the definition of jaywalking below, so there will be no further confusion:

Jaywalking is illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway. ... crossings where motorists are required to give way to pedestrians under defined conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

 

[CHERIE.T]

lol. I think that Shahid and his friends are trying to intimidate and communicate with the Grand Jurors. jmo

JMHOO from I've read that's how Shahid 'rolls'.

 

[al66pine]

oy.

This case has become nearly impossible to discuss at this point without politics and the larger issues being alleged about the system in general and civil rights violation allegations.

Both MB and ODW are now completely lost in this greater debate and I have no clue how to post responsibly on this case anymore now that it is not just about the shooting but all that has come after.

I will watch from the sidelines and hope that true justice is served in this shooting and whatever larger issues come to light due to the shooting. For me the shooting is one topic. The greater social, economic, racial and justice system issues are separate. but thanks to the way this case has played out in teh press and in the court of public opinion it feels as if they are all now rolled into one big issue. I can't discuss the matters in that way. They will forever remain separate in my mind.

I will continue to come here for updates on the shooting case but from here on out, there is nothing more I can say on that specific topic that I have not already said 20 ways to Sunday.

Time to sit back and see what happens with the case of MB being shot by ODW. nothing more to be gained by my continued attempts to participate in that discussion.

Thanks for all the thought provoking reading these last weeks.

tlcya
Thanks for your contribs to this thread (and others) and your articulate insights offered.

Mods, pls consider this post as a request to break into 2 diff threads (at least,imo), as tlcya suggests above.

1 = LEO DW and Ferguson resident MB and possible indictmt of LEO.
2 = Investigations other than above poss crim case.
IIRC, we have
---DOJ investigation of LEO DW's use of force in above incident ............................................(my inartful paraphrasing)
---DOJ investigation of possible LE racial profiling/bias/discrimination in issuing traffic tickets ...(my inartful paraphrasing)
---DOJ investigation of _____(???)

Thread 1 involves several elements of defense of person & assault on LEO, and one set of facts, many unknown at this point.
Thread 2 involves dozens or hundreds of factors other than the above.

So much confusion could be eliminated or at least reduced.

Mods, thanks for your consideration of this idea.

 

[sorrell skye]

I don't think people were saying it never happens. I think they were saying it never happens without probable cause, and until the process plays out, there is not yet, probable cause. jmo

The opinions expressed seemed to indicate that an indictment was required in order to make an arrest, which isn't factual.

Sorrel, Here is what we were agreeing on : [ no one said it never happens]

The purpose of the indictment is to get the green light for an arrest. The purpose for the grand jury hearings is for the prosecutor to show the jurors the evidence and they decide if there is cause for an arrest. If so, there is a True Bill, or an indictment. So yes, it is backwards to arrest someone before the indictment. jmo


ETA:


indictment
n. a charge of a felony (serious crime) voted by a Grand Jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). To bring an indictment the Grand Jury will not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried

[Nobody said it never happens in the backwards way.]

BBM

I agree that an indictment is sought in order to bring a case to trial. I disagree that it's unusual for an arrest to be made prior to an indictment.

indictment n. a charge of a felony (serious crime) voted by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney). To bring an indictment the grand jury will not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it, and that he/she should be tried.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/indictment

If probable cause exists, an arrest can be made prior to an indictment. This entire discussion began due to the question being posed as to whether or not an indictment is necessary in order to make an arrest.


Justification for Arrest

The Fourth Amendment requires courts to confirm that an arrest is supported by probable cause either before or shortly after officers take a suspect into custody. A judge or magistrate’s signing an arrest warrant serves this purpose, but most arrests don’t involve warrants. As a result, officers have to get quick probable cause determinations in order to hold most arrestees in jail. But states don’t have to afford defendants an actual “hearing”—rather, it suffices for the prosecution or arresting agency to provide a prompt written statement that a judge or magistrate endorses. (See, for example, D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 5(c).)


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-probable-cause-hearing.html

I misspoke when I stated that folks said it never happens - I apologize.

The fact of the matter is that arrests of both police officers and private citizens have occurred prior to an indictment, because an indictment isn't necessary to make an arrest - probable cause is the deciding factor regarding an arrest.

An indictment pertains to whether or not a prosecutor can or will bring a case to trial.