Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front

I think it's more than wanting to be cool, these white guys, I suspect, are the anarcho-communists that show up at the sites of global economic summits to smash storefronts, hurl rocks and molotav cocktails at police

Could be, but you assume that these outsiders are dedicated to a political cause. I suspect that a lot of the traveling demonstrators have as their primary agenda an ego stroke, thrills, and adding to the stories to tell their friends collection.

Back when we had journalists we would have had the 911. These days we fly kinda blind.

Here in Olympia we get a lot of hippy-dippy types showing up in the summer, allegedly to advocate for some cause or another, often homelessness or the sexually confused. Then tend to clear out soon after the temperatures start to dip and the rains hit sep/oct. They are fair weather activists, they are only at it when it is fun.

This is just going to be another topic that cannot be bridged between certain groups. It doesn't matter what the evidence is. There are plenty of people who, for a host of reasons, want to believe, and do, that a white cop gunned down and unarmed and, essentially, innocent "child" for no reason other than he was black. There could be a video of the entire incident showing exactly what the obviously led the GJ to believe happen and there would still be a large group (including intelligent and well educated people) who will refuse to believe what it shows them.

The current argument (and there will be more) is that the prosecuting attorney didn't argue for a specific charge, and (apparently) that if he had the GJ would have ignored all the evidence and indicted Wilson. This ignores the fact that the prosecuting attorney wasn't legally bound to bring the case before the GJ (let alone argue for a charge), but did so because of the contentious nature of the incident. He is also not legally required to produce all the evidence seen by the GJ, but will be doing so.

I'm not sure that will be of any help since the group wanting him to have argued for a charge don't really care what the evidence showed. McCulloch specifically addressed the fact that many of the "witnesses" upon whose testimony so many people are basing their conclusion eventually changed their testimony or admitted they didn't actually witness the incident. These people were lying in order to set up the cop, but still people want to believe them. I just heard two African-American lawyers argue that the case should go to trial because there is evidence that Brown had his hands up and was running away from Wilson when he was gunned down. The evidence is the testimony of the liars, and the autopsy proved they were lying.

If these two guys can discard all of their legal training and knowledge for a position fortified by rage and frustration, what chance is there that the larger group will ever come to the conclusion that they are wrong, they have been wrong all along and that the GJ came to the right finding?

I appreciate why they are driven by anger and frustration but they have picked the wrong case on which to make their stand. It may seem to serve some over-arching sense of justice to these two to insist that from now on, no matter what the facts, a white cop who kills a black man must be tried (and make no mistake they will not be satisfied with only a trial), but that is an absurd corruption of our legal system, which, intellectually, they have to know. There is no way that justice is a product of an unjust process and not treating Wilson as an individual and this incident as an individual case is unjust. Officer Wilson's rights should not be sacrificed in an effort to address past injustices

There are legit grievances against cops and the government as a whole, in Ferguson and everywhere. THing is you dont subvert the justice system and attack one citizen without evidence of a crime to push those grievances. We saw this exact same bullshit in the Zimmerman case, where people took their grievance against gun culture and demanded that the justice system string Zimmerman up because their anger at gun culture demanded it.

No, the criminal justice system cant be used for that if we are to have justice, which we must. These folks need to take their complaints to the politicians were they belong, and leave people like this cop and zimmerman alone.

In America we keep on being fixated on the wrong things, we keep on wasting enormous amounts of time and money on things that either are not broken or on things that will not fix what is broken.

I challenge anyone to look at Ferguson closely and then claim that America is not deeply broken.

Is it lawful in that jurisdiction
to go to trial without an indictment ?

Will u settle for Bill Cosby ?

Law? Evidence? In a criminal justice proceeding?

You guys have gone insane! The Criminal justice system is supposed to get the people we want gotten and throw them in jail. How they get it done we dont need to know. *biting sarcasm*

But seriously, all these people who want to be my mommy or daddy and tell me how I should think need to go to hell. I did not put up with that nonsense from even my actual mom or dad.

I seriously hope that outsiders are not the primary cause of all of this violence. Ferguson was a shell of its former self when this shooting happened. It is going to be a lot worse for the foreseeable future. I want to think that they did it to themselves. We dont want our cities to be like syria, where outsiders fight civilization into rubble.

Michael Brown’s mother may face felony armed robbery charges:
Lesley McSpadden allegedly led a group of 20 to 30 people to a tent
in a parking lot in Ferguson, Mo. on Oct. 18 to beat and rob vendors
selling 'Justice for Michael Brown' merchandise.

BY MARC WEINREICH
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Thursday, November 6, 2014

The mother of Michael Brown could be charged with felony armed robbery
for allegedly attacking people in a Ferguson, Mo., parking lot because
they were selling T-shirts honoring the late teenager.

The Ferguson Police Department is currently investigating claims
that Lesley McSpadden brought a group of people — including her
own mother — to beat vendors and rob them of their “Justice for
Mike Brown” merchandise Oct. 18, The Smoking Gun has learned.

One person was hospitalized in the reported attack and another
unidentified alleged victim was reportedly beaten with a pipe.

McSpadden’s former mother-in-law, Pearlie Gordon, was among those beaten
by “a large group of about 20-30 subjects” who had “jumped out of
vehicles and rushed” the group of sellers, according to the police report.


Gordon, 54, was allegedly knocked to the ground and repeatedly struck
in the head. She detailed the brief exchange she had with McSpadden
at the time of the attack.

“You can’t sell this s**t,” McSpadden allegedly said, according to the report.

Gordon responded that “unless McSpadden could produce documentation
stating that she had a patent on her son’s name (Gordon) was going
to continue to sell her merchandise,” according to the report.

Countless T-shirts and other 'Justice for Michael Brown' merchandise
are being sold online. Similar items were allegedly stolen by Brown's
mother and others.

More than $1500 in merchandise and $400 in cash was allegedly
stolen by the attackers.

Once the investigation is finished, Ferguson police will decide
whether to charge McSpadden and the others with felony armed robbery.

The news comes as a grand jury is expected to announce whether
to bring criminal charges against the Ferguson police officer
who fatally shot Brown during a confrontation.

[All emfasis has been added by David.]

Yea, in my youth, I also had a large degree of autonomy,
being alone a lot of the time, especially summer vacations from school.

Freedom is good.





David

Have

Have you seen any recent images of Russian cities??

To be honest, I don't blame the protestors. It has been a bad year all around.

You know, if Obama was the "Emperor" as certain pundits have tried to paint him as, seems he would have levied his office to influence the grand jury. I'm pretty sure he would have been in favor of an indictment. Am I wrong in this?

To be honest, (assuming you are equating rioters with "protesters"), I can't imagine a more self-damning statement.



It's also apparent that you, like the two lawyers I referenced, want to ignore the evidence that a Grand Jury of your fellow citizens were convinced exonerated Officer Wilson from allegations of criminal behavior. Not only does this throw the life of an innocent public servant to the merciless mob, it justifies the mob's looting, arson and vandalism. Imagine what such people would do if they actually got their hands on Wilson.

To be honest, I am not too worried about your opinion, and yes I do think the rioters are protestors provoked into violence. Furthermore, from what I read of the two lawyers, the grand jury was conducted in a manner designed to not get an indictment.

That would be the easy answer wouldn't it. Did you watch the announcement last night? It was laid out pretty clear on how things went with the grand jury. The evidence doesn't support the rioters narrative. Nothing in the autopsy points to any wrong doing and there is evidence of shots fired from inside the car. Witnesses who claim to have seen the whole thing were interviewed prior to the autopsy and their claims didn't fit what the autopsy found. They were interviewed again afterwards and still their testimony didn't fit the evidence.

I think you're right that he probably would have preferred to hear that an indictment had come down, if only to avoid the possibility of rioting. I really don't like the man, but I don't believe he is among those who are thinking "Evidence be damned, this cracker has to pay!", and despite his executive fiats, I do think he's a big believer in the rule of law. Those fiats are contentious as hell and they do, in my opinion, cross the line on separation of powers, but they don't make him a "Emperor" to the extent that he will try to impose his judgment on each and every legal issue in America.

I do think, however that it crossed his mind how nice it would be if he could have done away with the GJ and made the decision himself, but, something like that, crosses everyone's mind from time to time.

Of course he doesn't have to act like an actual Emperor to damage constitutional based governance, and the people who are calling him "Emperor Obama" are engaged in knowing hyperbole, the way those who called Bush a "moron" did. (This, alas, will invite someone to swoop in with "Except Bush was an actual moron." which is glib, but only goes to prove my point, and display their moronic qualities).

However, he still has the opportunity to wave his scepter and make his will law by ordering his AG Eric (Chinless) Holder to file federal charges against Wilson. If, as it appears to be the case, the evidence in favor of Wilson is as strong as the prosecuting attorney related (and the GJ apparently believed), there should be no federal charges related to depriving Brown of his human rights. Should such charges be filed we will know that the White House is abusing its power...once again.

This entire matter is depressing as hell and not because "once again" a white police officer has murdered a black youth with impunity. It's depressing because "once again" there is an extremely devisive issue on which two sides cannot come to agreement through rational discussion. For someone who is of the mind that Wilson should have been indicted, not only is it impossible to present the evidentiary facts and convince them they are mistaken, you are likely to anger them if you try.

My nephew is one such person and has felt the need to pronounce his outrage on Facebook. You can probably imagine how tempted I have been to respond, but my real world personality is not so impetuous. Why should I respond? It won't convince him he is mistaken and it probably will damage our relationship. It's not worth it, but part of me resents the hell out of such a closed minded, bullying mentality. Fortunately the other part recognizes it as the passionate certainty of youth. I'm afraid though that I can't apply the same degree of understanding to fully "mature" adults that are not members of my family.

An issue that carries a ton of baggage that may be related in the largest picture, but has nothing to do with the portraits of Brown and Wilson, and it's an issue that is being exploited by thugs, hucksters and revolutionaries (for lack of a better term), in a manner that makes it more difficult for the actual underlying problems to be addressed. For example, on the micro-level, how committed to better relations with the community will the members of the Ferguson police force be when they know/believe the community wanted to take down one of their own despite the evidence?

Obama was absolutely right when he said that the police are most important in poor communities, and yet it is in these communities where the relations are usually the worst. This can't be explained solely by alleged racism among cops. It's far more complex and the communities bear some of the responsibility.

To some extent, Eric Holder was right when he said we are a nation of cowards when it comes to discussing issues of race. I doubt he mean't it the way I see it, but the dialogue on race in this country has been so conditioned that people are afraid to say anything, no matter how true it may be, that might result in them being labeled racist.

An honest discussion would allow, at least initially, both sides to introduce any and all notions, no matter how outlandish, and then through reason and good faith narrow the discussion to those that are actually relevant and require attention. Right now only one side gets to throw in the kitchen sink while the other has to tip toe through a mne field of political correctness.

Meet The Press last Sunday had a discussion on Ferguson in which Rudy Giuliani and Michael Eric Dyson participated. Giuliani made the point that there should be far more attention paid to the level of black on black crime in poor communities than is being paid to the Ferguson incident. The discussion became heated and Giuliani made the comment “The white officers wouldn’t be there if you weren’t killing each other." to which Dyson responded "this is the defensive mechanism of white supremacy at work in your mind, sir.” Giuliani's remark prompted outrage and assertions of racism, but, while Dyson's comment was published, it wasn't criticized.

The answer to better relationships between the police and black communities isn't sitting within the topic of black on black crime if only whites were allowed to go there, but if we want to find the answer to better race relations relevant topics that don't shed a positive light on the community can't be taboo. For some reason, discussing the racism of whites and white cops in particular is not taboo, in fact it's seen as enlightened and honest, but discussing the black crime rate AND asserting that it is not simply the product of white racism is off limits and a sign of racism. Substitute any other issue for race relations and we would all agree that this sort of fractured and contrained dialogue will never result in anything meaningful

I am not going to go over the case, no matter how it went down, I can't see any justification for shooting an unarmed man six times. Period.

How about running at the cop after he had already assaulted him? He didn't surrender and the evidence shows that. None of the shots were in the back as some of the loudest witnesses have claimed. He did indeed assault Officer Wilson as the loudest witnesses have denied. The whole narrative for the protests has fizzled and died. They were 100% wrong, so what do they do? Lets burn down our own town. WTG people.