Originally Posted By charming husband I am very tired of people trying to make Brown into something other than the thug he was. From stealing to his bowing up on the owner of the store when he was confronted-it was obvious on the tape that this was not his first time at the rodeo. His blood in the police car, and on the officer shows that he was involved in an altercation. Poor choices of Brown's making caused this sad situation.
Originally Posted By fkurucz My BIL is a cop in the UK. He's had to deal with big, tough thugs and he doesn't even carry a gun. And he thinks American cops are trigger happy thugs.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Still not going to feed the clueless troll, but RT of course is not that, so here are just a few facts about how unusual McCulloch's "prosecution" of this case was: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/25/1347320/-The-questions-no-one-asked-St-Louis-prosecutor-Bob-McCulloch">http://www.dailykos.com/story/...cCulloch</a> "McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault. Or more or less anything." (snip) "Giving the grand jury no instruction is equivalent to throwing them into the deep end of the pool with no swimming lessons. They had to work it out for themselves. It's not unusual for the prosecutor to not suggest a specific charge, but it's almost unprecedented for the prosecutor to dump all the evidence on the jury and leave them to figure it out for themselves. Almost, unprecedented, but not quite. Question: How many police officers have been indicted in shooting incidents since Bob McCulloch became prosecutor way back in 1991? Answer: None McCulloch is the son of a police officer who was shot in the line of duty. In his 24 years as prosecutor, he has never recommended charges against any police officer. How did that happen? It happened in large part because these cases are not handled like other cases. Question: Had this been a completely different sort of incident, one in which an officer had been killed, would you have instructed the jury in the same way? Answer: Oh, hell no. In the majority of incidents—make that every other type of incident—McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case. In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute. This case was given very special treatment, treatment designed to promote the sort of confusion that leads to "no true bill. The whole presentation to the grand jury was engineered not only to generate this outcome, but to do so in a way that uses the grand jury process to shield the true nature of what happened. It's a system that McCulloch knows well." So we have McCulloch's own history to show that he handled this case differently from hundreds of others he has handled. "Another very good question that I forgot until it came up in comments: How is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months." McCulloch could have pressed Wilson on these discrepancies. Maybe there's a reason for them. But we'll never know, because MuCulloch didn't ask them, which any good prosecutor would. The fact is, he didn't act as a prosecutor here, but as a defense attorney - and not as an "open" defense attorney, which of course is a necessary thing, but as a stealth defense attorney. The man is a disgrace to his profession. You know the expression "you can indict a ham sandwich?" It's basically true. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/">http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat...-wilson/</a> "Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them." 11! That's less than .01%. Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment. “If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.” The operative word there is "if." IF the prosecutor wants an indictment... McCulloch very clearly did not. "Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically." McCulloch's relationship to police was well known. 70,000 (!) people signed a petition asking him to recuse himself. Because he wasn't apt to aggressively push for an indictment, which is his job, and if an indictment doesn't happen, the community will not accept it as legitimate. If a special prosecutor, especially one known as even-handed, had been appointed and THEN no indictment was handed down, it stood a far, far better change of being accepted as legitimate. McCulloch knew this and insisted on doing it anyway - this was no accident and he got the result he wanted. For this reason, the result is not accepted as legitimate, and we are seeing the rage that results. There are many reasons for this, including of course the long history involved... but if you want the single person most to blame for the explosion that happened afterwards, look no farther than McCulloch.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <THIS MESS IN FERGUSON IS NOTHING BUT PURE AND UNADULTERATED RACISM.> Agreed. From both white and black people.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Dabob... I agree that McCullouch did not seek an indictment and have said that a couple of times in this thread. He only gave it to the Grand Jury because he thought it would be politically more acceptable than declining to prosecute on his own. He felt from the beginning that there was no probable cause. I think he maybe felt that by the time the GJ reached a decision area tensions would have been reduced. Guess again, it only increased them. On a different topic... very strange how the violence last night in Ferguson was minimal compared to the prior night. The Republican Lt. Governor claims that on Monday Governor Nixon gave the order that police and the Guard should "stand down", perhaps on orders from the Justice Department. So now it really gets interesting around these parts... on top of everything else there is political intrigue.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < He only gave it to the Grand Jury because he thought it would be politically more acceptable than declining to prosecute on his own.> I disagree. I think he took it on specifically because he wanted to sabotage the prosecution and effectively act as defense attorney so the cop would get off. Because there was a third option - handing it over to a special prosecutor. Literally tens of thousands of people urged him to do exactly that. But that guy might have been, you know, an actual prosecutor, and McCulloch couldn't have that. <He felt from the beginning that there was no probable cause. I think he maybe felt that by the time the GJ reached a decision area tensions would have been reduced. Guess again, it only increased them.> Once again, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should turn it over to a special prosecutor BECAUSE, given his history, if he brought in no indictment that the tensions would be intense. But he couldn't risk handing it over to someone who might actually prosecute. So he took it on, knowing full well the very real possibilities for an explosion if no indictment was reached. Now, he may have arrogantly overestimated his abilities to explain things away (and indeed if you watched his awful press conference, the arrogance is on display) and thought he could talk his way out of an explosion, but obviously he was flat wrong on that too.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://data.newsday.com/projects/opinion/matt-davies-political-cartoons/">http://data.newsday.com/projec...artoons/</a>#!/item/1631/standard-issue
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder skinnerbox, the more you rant uncontrollably like you did in post 18, the more you put yourself in your own little corner.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox That's for telling me what I already know. And truthfully, coming here is my own addiction problem that I need to address. I've been wanting to stop for a long time, but can't seem to stay away completely. But with comments like this, maybe I can now find the strength.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I'm going to try this again. You're correct, SPP, I'm acting like a jerk. If folks here don't want to engage with me and my overblown anger, they have every right not to do so. I have an anger problem. I've known it forever. I'm doing the best I can, but anger is a difficult thing to control for many people. Myself included. In any event... this board is a shadow of its former self. Beau still comes around and posts with new sock puppets and the new administrators let him. LP has been in decline since Doobekah hit the road, so I honestly don't know why I even bother anymore. There are plenty of other things I could do on the net that would be more helpful for attitude adjustment. Like watching videos of adorable puppies and kittens! Coming here just sends me off the deep end and raises my blood pressure. And I don't need any help in that department. I might have a difficult time staying away for good... such are the trials and tribulations of net addiction. But in any event, I apologize for my attitude. I do not, however, apologize for what I wrote. Big difference. I firmly believe that the majority of whites in St Louis County are racist. I'm tired of their attitude towards non-whites and the resultant politics and lawmaking that flows from such hatred. If it were up to me, I'd cut off all red states with such abysmal civil rights records from any Federal support that would go to these bigots. I'm tired of living in a blue state where more Federal taxes flow out than flow in as Federal support. I'm tired of supporting bigots who keep electing jerks like McCulloch and continue to treat non-whites like trash. Enough is enough.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox 19 Dogs And Cats Who Look Like You Feel After Thanksgiving <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/thanksgiving-dogs-cats-look-like-you-feel-photos_n_6202164.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...f=comedy</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Skinner... I don't mind the occasional rant. I've written more than a few too, but generally delete them after doing "Preview Message". What is harder for me to take is your extreme view and stereotyping of those of us in flyover land. I know, I sometimes take a stereotyped view of Californian's and Bay Area residents in particular. On the other hand, I always had the opinion that to a certain extent they enjoyed the stereotype. No one likes being stereotyped as an uneducated racist. You are often way out of line in your statements. Does racism exist in St. Louis county? I'm sure it does... it exists almost anywhere. But Obama won that county with 56.2% of the vote in 2012. I greatly doubt that Obama would have won a county populated largely by racists. You seem to totally discount the possibility that McCullouch keeps winning re-election because a majority of people in the county, the same people who voted for Obama, think he is doing a good job. Left wing blogs have no better accuracy than right wing blogs.
Originally Posted By doombuggy "Is Darren Wilson a racist jerk who was deliberately harassing Brown and his friend by shouting "Get the f&*k on the sidewalk!" when he saw them walking in the middle of the road? Absolutely." That punk had just ruffed up a clerk and robed a store. He WAS NOT being harassed.
Originally Posted By barboy4 ///That punk had just ruffed up a clerk and robed a store./// You get the one----point goes to you ///He WAS NOT being harassed./// Not this one......time to forfeit your previously awarded point as I find part 2 of your statement completely non sequitur.
Originally Posted By doombuggy So robbing a store then being stopped by the cops about it is harassment in your book? Ok lets say he was being "harassed by the man" You don't beat a person about the head and neck when they have a gun especially a cop.
Originally Posted By charming husband Brown chose his actions and his consequences. I am very tired of seeing protests that fail to acknowledge those facts. Things will not change based on fantasy.
Originally Posted By barboy4 Whether Brown robbed a store, fed the homeless or danced with the stars on ABC(or is that CBS??) just prior to this incident is not relevant to the claims of him being harassed by police.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The cops changed their story several times about whether Wilson knew about Brown's connection to the robbery. Even Wilson's final story was that he only made the connection after he saw cigarillos in his hand, NOT when he first shouted at them to "Get the f&*k on the sidewalk!" The protests also are not just about Brown. They have a long context. The same context where cops can beat Rodney King savagely AND BE CAUGHT ON VIDEO DOING IT, and still get off. The same context where two young black guys just recently (one a boy of 12) can be shot down shockingly quickly while holding toy guns, and odds are high that nothing will happen to those cops either. Meanwhile, white guys strut around with real assault weapons in "open carry" states and no one even alerts the cops in the first place. Most cops do their jobs very well. But there is a definite pattern here that cannot be denied, and if you're "tired" of people protesting that pattern (which is what they're protesting far more than Brown per se), imagine how tired you'd be if you had to worry every time your son walked out of the house if he was going to be shot for a minor infraction or no infraction at all.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf This story to me is less about racism than about cops being too quick to mete out fatal justice, which happens all too often. A part of me would have liked to have seen Wilson go down for his actions simply to send a message to cops everywhere that there are consequences for taking a person's life unnecessarily. Cops have other means to subdue someone: pepper spray, tasers, nightsticks, etc. -- not to mention shooting to disable rather than to kill -- and they should use those techniques whenever possible before using lethal means. I think the standard approach that district attorneys and grand juries should take in cases like this is IF there was an opportunity to secure the situation NOT to use lethal force and that opportunity was NOT opted for, then the cop should answer for his actions. Instead, the standard seems to be to assess whether the cop was physically threatened at all and, if he was, then lethal force was probably justified and a natural consequence to the victim's actions. This isn't right and it puts far too many people in danger of police abuse of force.
Originally Posted By charming husband If a police officer fears that his life is in danger you bet he can use lethal force. This ADULT attacked a cop! Once again Brown caused his own consequences. As far as toy guns go-realistic toy guns are not available to purchase at any toy store. I saw a picture of the toy gun in question and he did not purchase that at any toy store. This kid was told to put down what cops believed to be a weapon and he raised the weapon instead. Where are these parents that have failed to teach their children that life is not a video game. There are consequences for your actions both good and bad. You do not hit a police officer-EVER!
