Originally Posted By: Mystic
So Officer Wilson was sort of obligated to go after Brown.
Maybe policies need to change.
maybe
So Officer Wilson was sort of obligated to go after Brown.
Maybe policies need to change.
maybe
Officer Wilson to not be federally charged
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Mystic
So Officer Wilson was sort of obligated to go after Brown.
Maybe policies need to change.
maybe
Wilson did not "go after" Brown. Wilson was obligated to protect himself and the public at large.
I don't see any need for policy changes. Any policy changes would only benefit one group, not the general public.
We have too many privileged groups as is, with criminals becoming another one of those privileged groups.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
So Officer Wilson was sort of obligated to go after Brown.
Maybe policies need to change.
maybe
Wilson did not "go after" Brown. Wilson was obligated to protect himself and the public at large.
I don't see any need for policy changes. Any policy changes would only benefit one group, not the general public.
We have too many privileged groups as is, with criminals becoming another one of those privileged groups.
Last edited:
By saying Officer Wilson went after Brown what I meant of course was that he was going to try to arrest him. Brown had committed felonies by attacking Officer Wilson and trying to get Officer Wilson's gun. I did not mean that Officer Wilson was going to go after Brown in the sense he was going to kill him. But as a police officer he certainly was obligated to try to put Brown under arrest.
Brown had already demonstrated that he was dangerous (he attacked a police officer and tried to take that officer's gun) and he could potentially be dangerous to others as well. And I believe at this time Officer Wilson was aware of the assault and robbery at the store.
Putting a felon under arrest is protecting the public.
Brown had already demonstrated that he was dangerous (he attacked a police officer and tried to take that officer's gun) and he could potentially be dangerous to others as well. And I believe at this time Officer Wilson was aware of the assault and robbery at the store.
Putting a felon under arrest is protecting the public.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
The federal investigation did not uncover any facts that differed significantly from the evidence made public by the authorities in Missouri late last year, the law enforcement officials said. To bring federal civil rights charges, the Justice Department would have needed to prove that Officer Wilson had intended to violate Mr. Brown’s rights when he opened fire, and that he had done so willfully — meaning he knew that it was wrong to fire but did so anyway.
So no civil rights were found to have been violated.
From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/jus...ilson.html?_r=0
But this is not the end of the story:
Quote:
It is not clear when the broader civil rights inquiry of the police department, known as a pattern or practice investigation, will be completed. Under Mr. Holder, prosecutors have opened more than 20 such investigations nationwide. The Justice Department recently called for sweeping changes to the Cleveland Police Department and negotiated an independent monitor to oversee the department in Albuquerque.
Call it what you will, but this smacks of federal police control over local police and the extortion of police departments.
The federal investigation did not uncover any facts that differed significantly from the evidence made public by the authorities in Missouri late last year, the law enforcement officials said. To bring federal civil rights charges, the Justice Department would have needed to prove that Officer Wilson had intended to violate Mr. Brown’s rights when he opened fire, and that he had done so willfully — meaning he knew that it was wrong to fire but did so anyway.
So no civil rights were found to have been violated.
From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/jus...ilson.html?_r=0
But this is not the end of the story:
Quote:
It is not clear when the broader civil rights inquiry of the police department, known as a pattern or practice investigation, will be completed. Under Mr. Holder, prosecutors have opened more than 20 such investigations nationwide. The Justice Department recently called for sweeping changes to the Cleveland Police Department and negotiated an independent monitor to oversee the department in Albuquerque.
Call it what you will, but this smacks of federal police control over local police and the extortion of police departments.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: datech
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.
To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.
I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.
This is about as absurd a statement as I've read in a while.
But before you or anyone comments on it, I want you all to think about this ...
What you're suggesting is that despite a GJ criminal investigation, and a federal civil rights investigation, both of which came back with no indication of indictment, you think Wilson should be charged anyway.
Sir or Ma'am, we have a small document called the Constitution and within it is the Bill of Rights. Please read number V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamouse crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..."
It is the sworn duty of the prosecutors (both state and federal) to ONLY bring cases to trial which they believe have merit against the accused. If they have doubt of the plausibility of such charges, they can turn to a GJ for a second decision. IOW - the prosecutors have a responsitiblity to either charge the suspect of their own accord, or turn to the GJ if they think the case may be "iffy" and need another opinion from the public. MOST of the time, the prosecutors will act directly; they will bring charges based upon their own teamwork and decisions. But occasionally, they can turn to a GJ and ask for a "second opinion", as it were. The GJ process is given a WIDE and BROAD sense of empowerment; they can DIRECTLY question witnesses, command any appearance, and see far more evidence than a trial jury ever would. Trial jurys ONLY get to see what is presented, and they cannot ask direct questions of witnesses, nor can they call additionall witnesses. While it is true that a prosecutor may attempt to persuade a GJ one way or another, the GJ has a very distinct and powerful program to do exactly what they what as deeply as they want, regardless of what the prosecutor may or may not desire.
Also, it is no more or less my sowrn duty as a Deputy to ONLY arrest people for crimes I have probable cause to believe they committed. I don't get to just "guess" or "have a hunch" that someone might have committed a crime, and then toss them in jail to await their "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" (no. VI in the Bill of Rights). I, too, am bound by the concept that entire legal system will ONLY charge those in which we belive exists a credible and articuable presentment of facts to accuse a suspect. My legal duty is no more or less important, or effective, than is that of a prosecutor.
For you to suggest that Wilson be charged, regardless that two separate systems fully cleared him, is offensive to me in the most base way imaginable; it directly contradicts the sense of fair, equitable treatment of ALL PEOPLE in the Bill of Rights.
Now, I fully understand that your full post wasn't really intended to deride Wilson, but perhaps made moreso as a comment to poke the "system" and reveal it's inner workings for all to see. It's my belief that your comment was really to expose the justice system and not pick on Wilson directly. But ...
It just flys in the face of the full-faith efforts of our Founding Fathers to not make a mockery of the legal system, and protect ALL persons from injustice, as best can be provided. Whereas some protesters certainly believe that Brown's rights were violated, it does not make it "just" to ignore the full process and charge Wilson, just to make a point that he's innocent. The state and federal investigative systems have already ruled; there is no need for a trial of any nature.
One caveat here; a personal civil trial may well come about from the family for "wrongful death" of Brown by Wilson, but it will probably be a hard one to prove from the evidece we're all aware of. This is not unlike the tort case against OJ Simpson; he won his criminal trial and lost the civil case brought by the families Nicole and Ron. However, there was PLENTY of evidence to convict Simpson in that civil sense. Regarging Brown V. Wilson here, it would be a long, uphill battle for the family because the evidence shows Wilson had reasonable fear for his life and the shooting was justified. Should they file, a judge would first decide if there was merit to the case; it should end there, but probably wont ...
In short, the system is not set up to prove people innocent by trying them; they are presumed innocent until proven quilty. That presumption of innocense extends into the investigation and bringing of charges, not just at trial. We don't try people to prove them quiltless!
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.
To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.
I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.
This is about as absurd a statement as I've read in a while.
But before you or anyone comments on it, I want you all to think about this ...
What you're suggesting is that despite a GJ criminal investigation, and a federal civil rights investigation, both of which came back with no indication of indictment, you think Wilson should be charged anyway.
Sir or Ma'am, we have a small document called the Constitution and within it is the Bill of Rights. Please read number V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamouse crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..."
It is the sworn duty of the prosecutors (both state and federal) to ONLY bring cases to trial which they believe have merit against the accused. If they have doubt of the plausibility of such charges, they can turn to a GJ for a second decision. IOW - the prosecutors have a responsitiblity to either charge the suspect of their own accord, or turn to the GJ if they think the case may be "iffy" and need another opinion from the public. MOST of the time, the prosecutors will act directly; they will bring charges based upon their own teamwork and decisions. But occasionally, they can turn to a GJ and ask for a "second opinion", as it were. The GJ process is given a WIDE and BROAD sense of empowerment; they can DIRECTLY question witnesses, command any appearance, and see far more evidence than a trial jury ever would. Trial jurys ONLY get to see what is presented, and they cannot ask direct questions of witnesses, nor can they call additionall witnesses. While it is true that a prosecutor may attempt to persuade a GJ one way or another, the GJ has a very distinct and powerful program to do exactly what they what as deeply as they want, regardless of what the prosecutor may or may not desire.
Also, it is no more or less my sowrn duty as a Deputy to ONLY arrest people for crimes I have probable cause to believe they committed. I don't get to just "guess" or "have a hunch" that someone might have committed a crime, and then toss them in jail to await their "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" (no. VI in the Bill of Rights). I, too, am bound by the concept that entire legal system will ONLY charge those in which we belive exists a credible and articuable presentment of facts to accuse a suspect. My legal duty is no more or less important, or effective, than is that of a prosecutor.
For you to suggest that Wilson be charged, regardless that two separate systems fully cleared him, is offensive to me in the most base way imaginable; it directly contradicts the sense of fair, equitable treatment of ALL PEOPLE in the Bill of Rights.
Now, I fully understand that your full post wasn't really intended to deride Wilson, but perhaps made moreso as a comment to poke the "system" and reveal it's inner workings for all to see. It's my belief that your comment was really to expose the justice system and not pick on Wilson directly. But ...
It just flys in the face of the full-faith efforts of our Founding Fathers to not make a mockery of the legal system, and protect ALL persons from injustice, as best can be provided. Whereas some protesters certainly believe that Brown's rights were violated, it does not make it "just" to ignore the full process and charge Wilson, just to make a point that he's innocent. The state and federal investigative systems have already ruled; there is no need for a trial of any nature.
One caveat here; a personal civil trial may well come about from the family for "wrongful death" of Brown by Wilson, but it will probably be a hard one to prove from the evidece we're all aware of. This is not unlike the tort case against OJ Simpson; he won his criminal trial and lost the civil case brought by the families Nicole and Ron. However, there was PLENTY of evidence to convict Simpson in that civil sense. Regarging Brown V. Wilson here, it would be a long, uphill battle for the family because the evidence shows Wilson had reasonable fear for his life and the shooting was justified. Should they file, a judge would first decide if there was merit to the case; it should end there, but probably wont ...
In short, the system is not set up to prove people innocent by trying them; they are presumed innocent until proven quilty. That presumption of innocense extends into the investigation and bringing of charges, not just at trial. We don't try people to prove them quiltless!
Last edited:
That was after the fact. Officer Wilson's initial contact was to tell him to get on the sidewalk. It was shortly after that Wilson realized he matched the description of a suspect in a strong armed robbery minutes prior.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The sad thing to me is that a man died (Brown) and a man's life/career were ruined (Wilson) all because the suspect attacked the officer over a brief conversation about jay-walking. Had Brown simply complied and got off the street (which was a legal and fair directive) none of this would have happened.
I've not been following it that closely but I thought Brown was being apprehended for the robbery and beating of the convenience store clerk?
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The sad thing to me is that a man died (Brown) and a man's life/career were ruined (Wilson) all because the suspect attacked the officer over a brief conversation about jay-walking. Had Brown simply complied and got off the street (which was a legal and fair directive) none of this would have happened.
I've not been following it that closely but I thought Brown was being apprehended for the robbery and beating of the convenience store clerk?
Originally Posted By: javacontour
That was after the fact. Officer Wilson's initial contact was to tell him to get on the sidewalk. It was shortly after that Wilson realized he matched the description of a suspect in a strong armed robbery minutes prior.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The sad thing to me is that a man died (Brown) and a man's life/career were ruined (Wilson) all because the suspect attacked the officer over a brief conversation about jay-walking. Had Brown simply complied and got off the street (which was a legal and fair directive) none of this would have happened.
I've not been following it that closely but I thought Brown was being apprehended for the robbery and beating of the convenience store clerk?
I can well imagine that the fact that Brown, knowing he might have just committed a felony, assaulted Wilson, who DIDN'T know about that crime, at least until possibly part way through the encounter, is what caused the escalation of tension in this encounter.
The fact is Wilson was practically on the scene just after the robbery, Brown was in a highly agitated state because he was fleeing that crime. Very good, or perhaps bad, luck and timing, caused a flight or fight stress reaction:
"how your body reacts to your thought processes. The instinctive stress response to unexpected events is known as 'fight or flight'.
The fight or flight response was first noted by one of the early pioneers in stress research, Walter Cannon. In 1932 he established that when an organism experiences a shock or perceives a threat, it quickly releases hormones that help it to survive.
In humans, as in other animals, these hormones help us to run faster and fight harder. They increase heart rate and blood pressure - delivering more oxygen and blood sugar to power important muscles. They increase sweating in an effort to cool these muscles, and help them stay efficient. They divert blood away from the skin to the core of our bodies - reducing blood loss if we are damaged. As well as this, these hormones focus our attention on the threat, to the exclusion of everything else. Breathing is accelerated to supply more oxygen for conversion to energy. The heart moves into overdrive to supply the body with more oxygen and nutrients. Our immune system is activated, ready to administer to wounds. Attention and sight become acute and highly focused and our sense of pain is diminished as the body releases analgesic hormones.
"
Possibly both men had this reaction, Brown because he suddenly encountered the police, Wilson realizing he was at a crime scene basically still in progress (fleeing the site). Both of these men were big, powerful men, over 6 feet tall and in good if not athletic fitness.
That was after the fact. Officer Wilson's initial contact was to tell him to get on the sidewalk. It was shortly after that Wilson realized he matched the description of a suspect in a strong armed robbery minutes prior.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The sad thing to me is that a man died (Brown) and a man's life/career were ruined (Wilson) all because the suspect attacked the officer over a brief conversation about jay-walking. Had Brown simply complied and got off the street (which was a legal and fair directive) none of this would have happened.
I've not been following it that closely but I thought Brown was being apprehended for the robbery and beating of the convenience store clerk?
I can well imagine that the fact that Brown, knowing he might have just committed a felony, assaulted Wilson, who DIDN'T know about that crime, at least until possibly part way through the encounter, is what caused the escalation of tension in this encounter.
The fact is Wilson was practically on the scene just after the robbery, Brown was in a highly agitated state because he was fleeing that crime. Very good, or perhaps bad, luck and timing, caused a flight or fight stress reaction:
"how your body reacts to your thought processes. The instinctive stress response to unexpected events is known as 'fight or flight'.
The fight or flight response was first noted by one of the early pioneers in stress research, Walter Cannon. In 1932 he established that when an organism experiences a shock or perceives a threat, it quickly releases hormones that help it to survive.
In humans, as in other animals, these hormones help us to run faster and fight harder. They increase heart rate and blood pressure - delivering more oxygen and blood sugar to power important muscles. They increase sweating in an effort to cool these muscles, and help them stay efficient. They divert blood away from the skin to the core of our bodies - reducing blood loss if we are damaged. As well as this, these hormones focus our attention on the threat, to the exclusion of everything else. Breathing is accelerated to supply more oxygen for conversion to energy. The heart moves into overdrive to supply the body with more oxygen and nutrients. Our immune system is activated, ready to administer to wounds. Attention and sight become acute and highly focused and our sense of pain is diminished as the body releases analgesic hormones.
"
Possibly both men had this reaction, Brown because he suddenly encountered the police, Wilson realizing he was at a crime scene basically still in progress (fleeing the site). Both of these men were big, powerful men, over 6 feet tall and in good if not athletic fitness.
Originally Posted By: datech
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.
To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.
I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.
A public servant shouldn't have to leave his own country just because there is some kind of huge misunderstanding of the facts and the way the law sees this kind of situation.
Where would he go, Canada? I wouldn't want to have to go there. They call their dollars loonies, for one thing *(cause that's what they are).
The problem is, the people who are pro-Michael Brown don't care that he was in the wrong, all they see is a black vs white issue....
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.
To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.
I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.
A public servant shouldn't have to leave his own country just because there is some kind of huge misunderstanding of the facts and the way the law sees this kind of situation.
Where would he go, Canada? I wouldn't want to have to go there. They call their dollars loonies, for one thing *(cause that's what they are).
The problem is, the people who are pro-Michael Brown don't care that he was in the wrong, all they see is a black vs white issue....
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: datech
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.
To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.
I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.
This is about as absurd a statement as I've read in a while.
But before you or anyone comments on it, I want you all to think about this ...
In short, the system is not set up to prove people innocent by trying them; they are presumed innocent until proven quilty. That presumption of innocense extends into the investigation and bringing of charges, not just at trial. We don't try people to prove them quiltless!
True, but the idea would be to make the facts of the case more public, possibly preventing more rioting and looting. They claim the system is rigged, go ahead and have a trial, see what happened.
I know it will never happen, and even the feds chimed in on it, so it's completely off the table now. I just don't know what Wilson will do now, change his name and move, I guess.
Originally Posted By: datech
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.
To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.
I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.
This is about as absurd a statement as I've read in a while.
But before you or anyone comments on it, I want you all to think about this ...
In short, the system is not set up to prove people innocent by trying them; they are presumed innocent until proven quilty. That presumption of innocense extends into the investigation and bringing of charges, not just at trial. We don't try people to prove them quiltless!
True, but the idea would be to make the facts of the case more public, possibly preventing more rioting and looting. They claim the system is rigged, go ahead and have a trial, see what happened.
I know it will never happen, and even the feds chimed in on it, so it's completely off the table now. I just don't know what Wilson will do now, change his name and move, I guess.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I don't understand why Wilson went after Brown after the initial shot as he was running away. Why not stay in your vehicle and radio for backup and ambulance. I've seen and been stopped with 2 or 3 cars involved for stupid traffic tickets.
It seems over aggressive to me.
There needs to be a sea change in policing in this country. This is not Russia or Nazi Germany. So many people are upset over nothing? Harassment has to stop. Stop people who are dangerous. Leave others alone. Be fair and equitable in your policy.
Are you serious? radio for help from an 18 year old kid that just stole a bunch of cigars? What kind of cop does that?
Unfortunately the situation became serious when the kid went for the cops gun.
I don't understand why Wilson went after Brown after the initial shot as he was running away. Why not stay in your vehicle and radio for backup and ambulance. I've seen and been stopped with 2 or 3 cars involved for stupid traffic tickets.
It seems over aggressive to me.
There needs to be a sea change in policing in this country. This is not Russia or Nazi Germany. So many people are upset over nothing? Harassment has to stop. Stop people who are dangerous. Leave others alone. Be fair and equitable in your policy.
Are you serious? radio for help from an 18 year old kid that just stole a bunch of cigars? What kind of cop does that?
Unfortunately the situation became serious when the kid went for the cops gun.
Originally Posted By: grampi
The problem is, the people who are pro-Michael Brown don't care that he was in the wrong, all they see is a black vs white issue....
People keep saying stuff like this. It's like you all have no idea that this knife cuts both ways. The Wilson camp is just as infested with people who refuse to acknowledge institutional racism and are far too willing to make a hero of someone who guns down a young Black man.
The problem is, the people who are pro-Michael Brown don't care that he was in the wrong, all they see is a black vs white issue....
People keep saying stuff like this. It's like you all have no idea that this knife cuts both ways. The Wilson camp is just as infested with people who refuse to acknowledge institutional racism and are far too willing to make a hero of someone who guns down a young Black man.
How many times does it have to be proven that Michael Brown attacked a police officer, tried to get a gun away from that officer, and charged at the officer and was shot.
I don't know who is necessarily trying to make Officer Wilson a hero. But lethal force on the part of a police officer is justified when somebody tries to take a gun away from that officer. Officer Wilson was not required to permit himself to be beaten to death or shot with his own gun.
Guess what? After that assault on a police officer and trying to take a gun away from a police officer, Michael Brown committed felonies. Officer Brown got out of his vehicle and ordered Brown to stop and was going to arrest Brown. Brown then charged at the officer. Officer Wilson was JUSTIFIED in shooting Brown, and the same would have been true if Officer Wilson had been black and Brown a white youth.
I don't know who is necessarily trying to make Officer Wilson a hero. But lethal force on the part of a police officer is justified when somebody tries to take a gun away from that officer. Officer Wilson was not required to permit himself to be beaten to death or shot with his own gun.
Guess what? After that assault on a police officer and trying to take a gun away from a police officer, Michael Brown committed felonies. Officer Brown got out of his vehicle and ordered Brown to stop and was going to arrest Brown. Brown then charged at the officer. Officer Wilson was JUSTIFIED in shooting Brown, and the same would have been true if Officer Wilson had been black and Brown a white youth.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: grampi
The problem is, the people who are pro-Michael Brown don't care that he was in the wrong, all they see is a black vs white issue....
People keep saying stuff like this. It's like you all have no idea that this knife cuts both ways. The Wilson camp is just as infested with people who refuse to acknowledge institutional racism and are far too willing to make a hero of someone who guns down a young Black man.
This Micheal Brown guy was a poor choice for black people to stand behind.
I'm sure there have been many cases of unjust police actions involving blacks, but this wasn't one of them. The guy that was selling cigarettes on the street in NY, for example. He was also a big guy that resisted arrest, but he wasn't running anywhere so they could have done things differently. I don't know if the guy had been a big, white, homeless guy that resisted arrest and wouldn't cooperate that they wouldn't have done the same thing. Sometimes I think police deal with people a bit harshly out of need for efficiency. Sending out a SWAT team for every little situation gets expensive, so they try to 'get their man' best they can. Sometimes they don't show the best judgement there, but it's a tough job.
Personally, I do everything I can to try and distance myself from known criminals. I make sure all my lights and signals work and I don't fragrantly violate traffic laws. If I do get any kind of directive from an officer I comply immediately.
Unfortunately, I think the general white population's sympathy for the case of racially motivated police injustice is probably lower now than it was a year ago, before the Ferguson incident, as opposed to the sympathy that swelled after the Trayvon Martin shooting.
Originally Posted By: grampi
The problem is, the people who are pro-Michael Brown don't care that he was in the wrong, all they see is a black vs white issue....
People keep saying stuff like this. It's like you all have no idea that this knife cuts both ways. The Wilson camp is just as infested with people who refuse to acknowledge institutional racism and are far too willing to make a hero of someone who guns down a young Black man.
This Micheal Brown guy was a poor choice for black people to stand behind.
I'm sure there have been many cases of unjust police actions involving blacks, but this wasn't one of them. The guy that was selling cigarettes on the street in NY, for example. He was also a big guy that resisted arrest, but he wasn't running anywhere so they could have done things differently. I don't know if the guy had been a big, white, homeless guy that resisted arrest and wouldn't cooperate that they wouldn't have done the same thing. Sometimes I think police deal with people a bit harshly out of need for efficiency. Sending out a SWAT team for every little situation gets expensive, so they try to 'get their man' best they can. Sometimes they don't show the best judgement there, but it's a tough job.
Personally, I do everything I can to try and distance myself from known criminals. I make sure all my lights and signals work and I don't fragrantly violate traffic laws. If I do get any kind of directive from an officer I comply immediately.
Unfortunately, I think the general white population's sympathy for the case of racially motivated police injustice is probably lower now than it was a year ago, before the Ferguson incident, as opposed to the sympathy that swelled after the Trayvon Martin shooting.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: grampi
The problem is, the people who are pro-Michael Brown don't care that he was in the wrong, all they see is a black vs white issue....
People keep saying stuff like this. It's like you all have no idea that this knife cuts both ways. The Wilson camp is just as infested with people who refuse to acknowledge institutional racism and are far too willing to make a hero of someone who guns down a young Black man.
This was a clear cut case where the officer's actions were completely justified...I'm not saying institutional racism doesn't happen, it just didn't happen in this case...
Originally Posted By: grampi
The problem is, the people who are pro-Michael Brown don't care that he was in the wrong, all they see is a black vs white issue....
People keep saying stuff like this. It's like you all have no idea that this knife cuts both ways. The Wilson camp is just as infested with people who refuse to acknowledge institutional racism and are far too willing to make a hero of someone who guns down a young Black man.
This was a clear cut case where the officer's actions were completely justified...I'm not saying institutional racism doesn't happen, it just didn't happen in this case...
Originally Posted By: grampi
This was a clear cut case where the officer's actions were completely justified...I'm not saying institutional racism doesn't happen, it just didn't happen in this case...
While I'm not sure it's so clear-cut, I definitely see what you're saying.
Here's the problem. The fact that there are (conscious and unconscious) race baiters on all sides makes reasonable discussion impossible. I'm sure we can all agree on that, as the biggest single complaint in this thread seems to be that public pressure was a serious threat to the integrity of the legal process in this case.
The fact that there are race baiters on Brown's side means that it's hard to call some people's attention to institutional racism, police conduct, and the broken incentive structure for DAs. If you try, those people just lump you in with the race baiters and stop listening.
By the same token, the fact that there are (conscious and unconscious) racists on Wilson's side means it's hard to call other people's attention to the very real facts against Michael Brown and the equally real dangers that cops face every day. If you try, they just write you off as a White chauvinist and stop listening.
Idiots on all sides are comparably corrosive to the discourse, which is probably the most enduring single problem here. There's no sense pretending they only exist on one side.
This was a clear cut case where the officer's actions were completely justified...I'm not saying institutional racism doesn't happen, it just didn't happen in this case...
While I'm not sure it's so clear-cut, I definitely see what you're saying.
Here's the problem. The fact that there are (conscious and unconscious) race baiters on all sides makes reasonable discussion impossible. I'm sure we can all agree on that, as the biggest single complaint in this thread seems to be that public pressure was a serious threat to the integrity of the legal process in this case.
The fact that there are race baiters on Brown's side means that it's hard to call some people's attention to institutional racism, police conduct, and the broken incentive structure for DAs. If you try, those people just lump you in with the race baiters and stop listening.
By the same token, the fact that there are (conscious and unconscious) racists on Wilson's side means it's hard to call other people's attention to the very real facts against Michael Brown and the equally real dangers that cops face every day. If you try, they just write you off as a White chauvinist and stop listening.
Idiots on all sides are comparably corrosive to the discourse, which is probably the most enduring single problem here. There's no sense pretending they only exist on one side.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Fairness requires the rule of law. Rule of law requires sober discourse. Sober discourse requires everyone to be aware of the idiots on all sides, including their own.
Fairness has had it's say; the rule of law has been exercised.
The Rule of Law has presided and decided. It's done.
How many times should someone be raked over the coals for the same thing? Until you get the result you desire? That is not how our system works.
Fairness requires the rule of law. Rule of law requires sober discourse. Sober discourse requires everyone to be aware of the idiots on all sides, including their own.
Fairness has had it's say; the rule of law has been exercised.
The Rule of Law has presided and decided. It's done.
How many times should someone be raked over the coals for the same thing? Until you get the result you desire? That is not how our system works.
Last edited:
I bet that Brown kid's heart rate tripled when Wilson told him to get on the sidewalk. The whole thing was kind of like one of those movies where the bank robber gets pulled over for a bad tail light, and a gunfight ensues. Usually the cop ends up dead.
This time the cop has to leave his own country to be safe from hate mongers.
This time the cop has to leave his own country to be safe from hate mongers.
It is too bad about the Brown kid. Apparently a number of friends, relatives, etc. liked him.
A smart crook would have said to Wilson "yes sir, right away sir" and then run down an alley, avoiding capture. Instead Brown tried to bully the officer. The kid probably wasn't a real criminal. Maybe he was just pranking, out stealing cigars after he graduated.
I really feel sorry for the residents of Ferguson. MO. A lot of them will be stuck there.
A smart crook would have said to Wilson "yes sir, right away sir" and then run down an alley, avoiding capture. Instead Brown tried to bully the officer. The kid probably wasn't a real criminal. Maybe he was just pranking, out stealing cigars after he graduated.
I really feel sorry for the residents of Ferguson. MO. A lot of them will be stuck there.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
doodfood: The fact that there are race baiters on Brown's side means that it's hard to call some people's attention to institutional racism, police conduct, and the broken incentive structure for DAs. If you try, those people just lump you in with the race baiters and stop listening.
You might try to explain what you mean by, "...institutional racism, police conduct, the broken incentive structure for DAs."
You seem to assume that the problem lies within the justice system and that everyone is racist.
I don't assume that nor do I accept any of your inferences.
Furthermore, you seem to be one of those who believe that when the justice system finds you committed a crime, or died in the commission of a crime, it is the justice system, and not the criminal element, that needs scrutiny and behavorial modification.
doodfood: The fact that there are race baiters on Brown's side means that it's hard to call some people's attention to institutional racism, police conduct, and the broken incentive structure for DAs. If you try, those people just lump you in with the race baiters and stop listening.
You might try to explain what you mean by, "...institutional racism, police conduct, the broken incentive structure for DAs."
You seem to assume that the problem lies within the justice system and that everyone is racist.
I don't assume that nor do I accept any of your inferences.
Furthermore, you seem to be one of those who believe that when the justice system finds you committed a crime, or died in the commission of a crime, it is the justice system, and not the criminal element, that needs scrutiny and behavorial modification.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
doodfood: The fact that there are race baiters on Brown's side means that it's hard to call some people's attention to institutional racism, police conduct, and the broken incentive structure for DAs. If you try, those people just lump you in with the race baiters and stop listening.
You might try to explain what you mean by, "...institutional racism, police conduct, the broken incentive structure for DAs."
You seem to assume that the problem lies within the justice system and that everyone is racist.
I don't assume that nor do I accept any of your inferences.
Furthermore, you seem to be one of those who believe that when the justice system finds you committed a crime, or died in the commission of a crime, it is the justice system, and not the criminal element, that needs scrutiny and behavorial modification.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
...In short, the system is not set up to prove people innocent by trying them; they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That presumption of innocense extends into the investigation and bringing of charges, not just at trial. We don't try people to prove them quiltless!
And that summarizes our system of justice.
doodfood: The fact that there are race baiters on Brown's side means that it's hard to call some people's attention to institutional racism, police conduct, and the broken incentive structure for DAs. If you try, those people just lump you in with the race baiters and stop listening.
You might try to explain what you mean by, "...institutional racism, police conduct, the broken incentive structure for DAs."
You seem to assume that the problem lies within the justice system and that everyone is racist.
I don't assume that nor do I accept any of your inferences.
Furthermore, you seem to be one of those who believe that when the justice system finds you committed a crime, or died in the commission of a crime, it is the justice system, and not the criminal element, that needs scrutiny and behavorial modification.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
...In short, the system is not set up to prove people innocent by trying them; they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That presumption of innocense extends into the investigation and bringing of charges, not just at trial. We don't try people to prove them quiltless!
And that summarizes our system of justice.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
