Ferguson cop
I'm totally appauled that they did not indict the cop
By serious who the f riots I mean how uneducated do you have to be to riot and cause damage to innocent people I'm beyond f Ing pissed right now over these stupid frigging idiots
Quote: strictlyAPFirst off just have to vent
I'm totally appauled that they did not indict the cop
You know something the grand jury didn't?
You don't think they were very very careful
in their evaluation? Of course they were,
it was the right decision. Thank god we
aren't getting OJ juries anymore.
Illinois, Wisconsin I.D.'s on some.
It's interesting to watch the conservative, damned near racist slant that Fox gives their coverage, and then compare it to the liberal bias of CNN.
Keep in mind that the grand jury only sees what the prosecution is willing to present in order to make a case. And, in this situation, the prosecution did not want this to go to trial, so who knows what-all actually got said; GJ proceedings are secret. It's not like anyone in there made Michael Brown's case for him. There's no cross-examination, no defense presentation - that all happens in the trial, if there is one. The GJ reportedly (experts parsing the prosecutor's statement; it's early yet) completely disregarded eyewitness testimony as biased or and only looked at the officer's statement and the autopsy/forensics as valid information.
The bar to indict is very low; doesn't take a preponderance of the evidence, just any indication it's possible a crime was committed. They should have recognized that there was at least a possibility that one of the 5 counts could be proven through the trial process. It's also questionable that they allowed this particular prosecutor to take this before the GJ. He has many relatives in local law enforcement, including his deceased father. Likely he should have recused himself.
Up to the Feds to charge, and of course there will be the inevitable wrongful death civil suit.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe bar to indict is very low; doesn't take a preponderance of the evidence, just any indication it's possible a crime was committed.
I'm not an attorney, so could be wrong on this, but I thought the standard of a Grand Jury was at least a 51% chance of guilt of anything to ... I'm not sure of the term ... but to send it to a full criminal trial. You may it sound like the standard is 1%. You could be right, I'm just throwing the challenge flag.
But the riots are absurd. Even if Wilson was 100% guilty beyond doubt and they let him off somehow thethere woul be no excuse for burNing cars and looting stores. One of the stores looted has posters supporting Brown, so there is clearly no rationale, they are just looting to loot.
My theory is the rioters need a job, anyone who can get that absurd over a situation where they are on the wrong side clearly.
The amount of race baiting is almost religious. It reminds me of the Islamic riots in the Middle East where a couple clerics get a few hundred people riled up by saying theyes are treated unfairly or insulted and then they start looting and pillging. It's the same thing here, some "clerics" (it's obvious who they are) convince people that they are under attack and have to take violent action against the "infidels".
Quote: WizardI'm not an attorney, so could be wrong on this, but I thought the standard of a Grand Jury was at least a 51% chance of guilt of anything to ... I'm not sure of the term ... but to send it to a full criminal trial. You may it sound like the standard is 1%. You could be right, I'm just throwing the challenge flag.
I've heard it said that a Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich; so I think the bar is lower than most of us think.
Quote: beachbumbabsThey had to indict in order to go through the process and begin some healing in the sunshine, regardless of the ultimate decision at trial. This is completely in-your-face politicking.
What is the next step to this thought process? That there has to be a jury conviction to begin the healing process? The Grand Jury is not there for "healing"; they are presented evidence and then decide whether the standard is met for an indictment or not. Without the benefit of having heard the evidence presented, how can it be said that they "had to indict"?
A cop also got shot tonight. But fortunately it was only in the arm.
Quote: GandlerI have faith in the courts, they must have their reasons for their decision.
.
It's called evidence.
Its fairly hard to get a police officer indicted. The Grand Jury sees what it wants to see and hears whomever it wants to call, its not just a spoon-feeding session by the prosecutor. There are many reasons why a person in restraints can still be a threat to the officer or to his possession and control over his sidearm. Hand cuffing does not necessarily subdue a person emotionally. He was large, powerful and aggressive based upon his filmed behavior in the convenience store.Quote: EvenBobIt's called evidence.
I'd have to hear the evidence of head butts, disorientation, being struck by hand cuffs, kicked, grabbing of gun, etc. but I see nothing as obviously wrong with this.
Quote: FleaStiff. but I see nothing as obviously wrong with this.
They would have rioted either way, as the
police chief in Ferguson said. Rioting is
fun to a certain segment of this society.
I saw the video of them looting the liquor
store, they weren't upset, they were laughing
and having a good ol time. Before the verdict
they were laughing and dancing. It's a party
night.
Parts of my city that were destroyed in the 67
riots have never been rebuilt. The businesses
are still boarded up almost 50 years later. But
they sure had fun, that's what counts.
Trayvon Martin was in my backyard. I think a lot of the reason why we didn't get these kind of riots was because the case went to trial and the people feeling wronged had their day in court. But the protesters here were numerous and loud, much more so than what's been happening in Ferguson - marches of hundreds of thousands, 24/7 coverage for months, agitators spooling up the mobs, all the rest.
I should amend one previous thing I said; the prosecutor has decided, very unusually, to release some if not all of the evidence of the GJ proceedings, so it's not as secret as usual. I don't know yet whether they're releasing transcripts or deliberations of the GJ itself. They're saying they are not releasing the number of votes each way on whether to indict.
you can check them out here:
http://citizenstreams.com/
No on there is currently streaming from ferguson but tomorrow about 5 or 6 streamers should pop back up.
Quote: EvenBobIt's called evidence.
Part of the prosecutor's statement was that they disregarded any eyewitness testimony that didn't match the other evidence they felt they had. The corollary to that is that they only presented the evidence and testimony that supported their version of the event. When the prosecution WANTS an indictment, that's what they do to move the GJ to indict. So, again, when they DON'T want an indictment, but outside interests are forcing them to make a presentation, what are they going to present? The information that pushes the GJ into making the decision they want, which they can then blame on the GJ, not themselves.
Think you're looking for either "preponderance of evidence" or "reasonable doubt" standards, Wiz, and I don't know Missouri law to know their standard. But, yeah, the "indict a ham sandwich" is a famous phrase as mentioned above. It's all in what you allow the GJ to know. It'll be interesting to see if they were allowed to hear any of the contradictory information unfiltered by the prosecutor.
Quote: beachbumbabsThey had to indict in order to go through the process and begin some healing in the sunshine, regardless of the ultimate decision at trial. This is completely in-your-face politicking.
Keep in mind that the grand jury only sees what the prosecution is willing to present in order to make a case. And, in this situation, the prosecution did not want this to go to trial, so who knows what-all actually got said; GJ proceedings are secret. It's not like anyone in there made Michael Brown's case for him. There's no cross-examination, no defense presentation - that all happens in the trial, if there is one. The GJ reportedly (experts parsing the prosecutor's statement; it's early yet) completely disregarded eyewitness testimony as biased or and only looked at the officer's statement and the autopsy/forensics as valid information.
The bar to indict is very low; doesn't take a preponderance of the evidence, just any indication it's possible a crime was committed. They should have recognized that there was at least a possibility that one of the 5 counts could be proven through the trial process. It's also questionable that they allowed this particular prosecutor to take this before the GJ. He has many relatives in local law enforcement, including his deceased father. Likely he should have recused himself.
Excuse me for saying this, but SAY WHAT?
So you are saying that despite the officer's Constitutional Rights, despite the evidence, despite everything the man should be on trial for his life because we "need healing" and whatever other kind of gobbleygook is out there that is more important than the facts and the law?
Is being PC this important?
The reality is that if the prosecutor had strong evidence he could have skipped the grand jury and tried his luck at a preliminary hearing. Of course that would have been in the open and we would have seen how shaky the case was in the first place.
I have just gotten up and am scanning the news but it appears that the race-industrial complex is getting exactly what it wanted. The media portion gets days of riots to cover, the "leaders" get to point at the cops, the sheep get to say how the world is against them. And on it goes, until the next one.
Quote: AZDuffman
I have just gotten up and am scanning the news but it appears that the race-industrial complex is getting exactly what it wanted. The media portion gets days of riots to cover, the "leaders" get to point at the cops, the sheep get to say how the world is against them. And on it goes, until the next one.
Yes. I love this race baiting industry. Profesional victims. Luckily Brown was not Muslim or the police for would be Islamaphobic.
But rioting and attacking innocent people, brunging cars, is OK for them because they feel wronged...
They should be "healed" with CS gas and pepper spray.
but unfortunately the police are probably too scared to take strong action because of the spotlight on them...
Quote: GandlerYes. I love this race baiting industry. Profesional victims. Luckily Brown was not Muslim or the police for would be Islamaphobic.
But rioting and attacking innocent people, brunging cars, is OK for them because they feel wronged...
They should be "healed" with CS gas and pepper spray.
but unfortunately the police are probably too scared to take strong action because of the spotlight on them...
Historically riots take 3-4 days to burn themselves out and also historically all you can do is contain them and pick up the worst of the offenders. They have had their first night, by morning the cops and guard should have the area sealed off. Next step is close the perimeter inward.
I love how the same Obama who came out against the cop up in MA without knowing many if any facts now "calls for calm." What has been whipped up now spins out of control. And folks, don't think it is going to get better in the coming years and decades. It will not. Trends show it is going to merely get worse.
Quote: AZDuffmanHistorically riots take 3-4 days to burn themselves out and also historically all you can do is contain them and pick up the worst of the offenders. They have had their first night, by morning the cops and guard should have the area sealed off. Next step is close the perimeter inward.
I love how the same Obama who came out against the cop up in MA without knowing many if any facts now "calls for calm." What has been whipped up now spins out of control. And folks, don't think it is going to get better in the coming years and decades. It will not. Trends show it is going to merely get worse.
The President has made some bad calls in this case as well as with the Zimmerman incident a few years ago.
When the President takes the wrong side against all evidence that is a horrible place for our country to be. When the head of state questions the courts who knows how much violence he personally caused with his influence alone.
Quote: beachbumbabsThey had to indict in order to go through the process and begin some healing in the sunshine, regardless of the ultimate decision at trial. This is completely in-your-face politicking.
.
There were Blacks, Whites, Young, Old, Makes & Females on the Grand Jury who looked at the evidence and made multiple decisions on charges. To suggest that someone who is not charged based on evidence should have to go through a trial for "healing" is silly in my mind. And do you really think what happened last night would have been any different if there was a trial and he was found "Not Guilty"? The majority of the violent protesters already made their mind up and will accept nothing less than a "Guilty" finding regardless of testimony.
I commend those on the Grand Jury who took time to debate what evidence they were given and even with the lessor burden needed to file charges decided against it.
This next statement will be read as racist by some but I wonder if the reason many blacks continue to earn less and have less than most whites has something to do with always feeling they are victims instead of looking at their individual situation and finding ways to make it better. And I feel the same about the white poor liberals always use as helpless victims who will never get anywhere without the government handing them things.
I at least hope many of the protesters used vacation time to take off work today because they would probably be tired and less productive today.
@Boz, I bet most of the protestors don't even have jobs.
The trouble is that Petit Juries can, and often do, reach absurd verdicts for utterly irresponsible reasons. A jury is a crap shoot.Quote: beachbumbabsI don't think I have to say this, but I'm not in the slightest excusing or defending the carnage. I am saying that it would have been better for the community if the matter had gone to trial, no matter the verdict. In a GJ proceeding, only one side is heard. In a trial, both are.
An adversary proceeding may indeed shed more light on the matter but should a defendant be hauled before a jury of twelve dullards for the good of the community? Why should someone be exposed to jeopardy ... its an expensive and emotionally draining ride even those who hear "Not Guilty" walk out of the courtroom physically and emotionally exhausted (not to mention financially ruined).
Consider Ryan Ferguson also of Missouri: he did ten years of a forty year stretch because a druggie dreamed about a murder and the police were perfectly willing to spoon-feed the druggie sufficient details "that only the perpetrator would know" Unfortunately, the druggie included Ryan Ferguson in his dreams and the DA let a "witness" slide on a sex charge in return for his "eyewitness identification".
Now you go ask a young man who was in prison from 20 to 30 if he should be exposed to jeopardy for the good of the community. Or you go ask his bankrupted family members?
The primary purpose of a Grand Jury is to act as a brake on the otherwise unfettered actions of the police and prosecutor.
A lawyer's primary duty to his client is not to win, but keep his client out of court entirely.
Quote: FleaStiffThe trouble is that Petit Juries can, and often do, reach absurd verdicts for utterly irresponsible reasons. A jury is a crap shoot.
An adversary proceeding may indeed shed more light on the matter but should a defendant be hauled before a jury of twelve dullards for the good of the community? Why should someone be exposed to jeopardy ... its an expensive and emotionally draining ride even those who hear "Not Guilty" walk out of the courtroom physically and emotionally exhausted (not to mention financially ruined).
Consider Ryan Ferguson also of Missouri: he did ten years of a forty year stretch because a druggie dreamed about a murder and the police were perfectly willing to spoon-feed the druggie sufficient details "that only the perpetrator would know" Unfortunately, the druggie included Ryan Ferguson in his dreams and the DA let a "witness" slide on a sex charge in return for his "eyewitness identification".
Now you go ask a young man who was in prison from 20 to 30 if he should be exposed to jeopardy for the good of the community. Or you go ask his bankrupted family members?
The primary purpose of a Grand Jury is to act as a brake on the otherwise unfettered actions of the police and prosecutor.
A lawyer's primary duty to his client is not to win, but keep his client out of court entirely.
Exactly, I am not lawyer like you (if I recall correctly). But it is so easy for people to make up absurd accusations and take them to trial (and inevitably cost them loads of money to defend themselves). This prevents absurd cases from going to court.
It's ashame they dId not grand jury Zimmerman and that he was forced to go broke defending himself against ridiculous accusations. But unfortunately for him he was not a cop so he had nobody watching out for him...
Quote: Boz
This next statement will be read as racist by some but I wonder if the reason many blacks continue to earn less and have less than most whites has something to do with always feeling they are victims instead of looking at their individual situation and finding ways to make it better. And I feel the same about the white poor liberals always use as helpless victims who will never get anywhere without the government handing them things.
I believe this is totally true on earning less. I have seen several times and heard several more where "racism" is charged when the black employee is totally in the wrong. I was nearly physically attacked once when I fired a black guy for not showing up to any of his sales calls. Another guy told me how a black female we worked with was caught falsifying her work (he found out by accident and reported it) and when she was fired was screaming, yes screaming, "racism" as security was ejecting her from the building. Another I laid off was not malicious but just a total screw-up, costing me customers left and right. When I laid him off he was in disbelief and he always had the look that said, "you are just being racist" though he was too shy to come out and say it. My grandfather fired two black workers in the 1970s for refusing an order to work, they took it to the NAACP and lost.
As to "having less" I do not think it is as much as looking at themselves as victims but more how they handle their money. I have noticed that blacks are far more brand conscious than whites, and more short-term thinking. When I was in pest control we went into many houses, a running thing was a white will have a house in a nicer neighborhood but empty of furniture while a black will have a place in a less nice neighborhood but every consumer electronic product imaginable. I have a buddy who works with troubled yutes and while we disagree on things he agreed in an instant when I pointed this out. Blacks also are less likely to even use a bank or have much in the way of financial planning. All the "outreach" in the world makes no difference, they walk past the bank and buy money orders. Again, seen it happen.
The thing is, too many sides have too much to gain in this whole thing. The race-industry gets to whip things up. The liberals get to say "see!" for another election cycle. The government gets more people happy to give up more rights for "security." The news media get to cover something besides Obama pardoning some turkeys. And the band will play on.
I think this forum is a very good example of real life.
There are quite a few good citizens here. They abide by the rules and don't try to get away with anything ever. Then there are a few more who are good members, but occasionally will get into a debate that gets heated, and they get caught up in the moment. But they are quick to apologize for any perceived transgressions. The final group is the ones who are continually pushing the line, always trying to get away with something, or looking for ambiguous situations so they can either get away with something, or at least, challenge authority. These people more often than not end up nuked.
Now let's look at real life.
You have law abiding citizens who are respectful of authority and never have any issues.
Then there are a large number who misbehave once in a while, like speeding. They are not looking for trouble, and most of the time they get away with their transgressions with no repercussions. They shouldn't be doing it, but they do.
Then you have the group who have no respect for fellow human beings, and no respect for authority. They blatantly commit crimes and constantly ignore authorities, or try and provoke reactions. And some of these confrontations end up in a nuking.
Bottom line. If you are going to live on the edge, and submerse yourself in constant criminal behavior, you are putting yourself in the position of possible harm, whether it is deserved or not for that particular event.
I am tired of the bullcrap. My tax money that could be used for better things, ends up being spent on babysitting and investigating these thugs who are repeat offenders. They are a parasite on society and the money wasted on policing them could be better used to help others who are trying to make a better life.
I'm not saying we should shoot to kill for every petty crime, but I am saying that once the video came out of him stealing the cigars from the store, this case should have ended. He had just committed a crime, end of story. It's not like this was his first time. How many people have felt threatened by him during his crimes? How many people were afraid of what was going to happen? How is it fair to any of them?
We have gone soft as a society. The criminals have all the rights to bother and intimidate innocent people, and then when a criminal gets killed, everyone gets all up in arms about how unfair that was to the criminal, and that justice must prevail. BULLCRAP. He was constantly looking for trouble, and he finally found it. If you were one of the people who he stole from, or whatever else, I bet they feel justice has been served.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe government gets more people happy to give up more rights for "security."
I agree with almost everything you said except for this. I think these unreasonable riots are an excellent reason of why we need stricter and more militaristic police on the streets to scare off potential disorderly people and to meet violence with violence immediatly.
Quote: GandlerI agree with almost everything you said except for this. I think these unreasonable riots are an excellent reason of why we need stricter and more militaristic police on the streets to scare off potential disorderly people and to meet violence with violence immediatly.
There is a difference between when you have riots like this and need a real SWAT team and daily police work. But we are getting to where the regular cops are getting to be militarized and that scares the crap out of me. Cops might not like this statement, but I want them to be concerned they might get blown away on every raid or stop. Because if they have this concern then they will not stop or raid for petty reasons. When the government has no fear of the people then you are on the very short road to tyranny.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI probably should just keep my mouth shut, but here goes anyway.
I think this forum is a very good example of real life.
There are quite a few good citizens here. They abide by the rules and don't try to get away with anything ever. Then there are a few more who are good members, but occasionally will get into a debate that gets heated, and they get caught up in the moment. But they are quick to apologize for any perceived transgressions. The final group is the ones who are continually pushing the line, always trying to get away with something, or looking for ambiguous situations so they can either get away with something, or at least, challenge authority. These people more often than not end up nuked.
Now let's look at real life.
You have law abiding citizens who are respectful of authority and never have any issues.
Then there are a large number who misbehave once in a while, like speeding. They are not looking for trouble, and most of the time they get away with their transgressions with no repercussions. They shouldn't be doing it, but they do.
Then you have the group who have no respect for fellow human beings, and no respect for authority. They blatantly commit crimes and constantly ignore authorities, or try and provoke reactions. And some of these confrontations end up in a nuking.
Bottom line. If you are going to live on the edge, and submerse yourself in constant criminal behavior, you are putting yourself in the position of possible harm, whether it is deserved or not for that particular event.
I am tired of the bullcrap. My tax money that could be used for better things, ends up being spent on babysitting and investigating these thugs who are repeat offenders. They are a parasite on society and the money wasted on policing them could be better used to help others who are trying to make a better life.
I'm not saying we should shoot to kill for every petty crime, but I am saying that once the video came out of him stealing the cigars from the store, this case should have ended. He had just committed a crime, end of story. It's not like this was his first time. How many people have felt threatened by him during his crimes? How many people were afraid of what was going to happen? How is it fair to any of them?
We have gone soft as a society. The criminals have all the rights to bother and intimidate innocent people, and then when a criminal gets killed, everyone gets all up in arms about how unfair that was to the criminal, and that justice must prevail. BULLCRAP. He was constantly looking for trouble, and he finally found it. If you were one of the people who he stole from, or whatever else, I bet they feel justice has been served.
STEALING A CIGAR is NOT punishable by DEATH. I think Mr. BROWN was annoying. Mr. BROWN was an asshole. But shooting an UNARMED man/woman should not happen in this society we live in. Put this case to trial is good because it will remind the police NOT to shoot and kill. 6 or 10 shoots??????? Killing a person (armed or unarmed), (white or black), will have serious consequence.
Quote: GandlerI agree with almost everything you said except for this. I think these unreasonable riots are an excellent reason of why we need stricter and more militaristic police on the streets to scare off potential disorderly people and to meet violence with violence immediatly.
I hate to say it, but I believe this is going to be the only way to stop these riots, and inevitable arson. Peaceful demonstrations will be allowed, but any attempt at violence, will be dealt with swiftly and fiercely. and the first match that gets struck will be extinguished with bullets.
Unfortunately the first few times there will be collateral damage. Some people who wanted to demonstrate peacefully will be in the wrong place and get caught in the crossfire. But after 3 or 4 riots are squashed and the result is many of the trouble makers were killed, I bet we have a whole lot less trouble at demonstration number 5. A side effect is the mob will also start to police themselves too. If you are peaceful, but standing next to someone who decides to start trouble, are you going to stand by and risk getting shot, or, are you instead going to prevent the idiot from starting the violence?
20 people start rocking a car to tip it over? Shoot them. Where does our Constitution give them a right to damage someone's property? A police car? Hey, my tax dollars paid for that, and my tax dollars will have to pay to replace it. Besides, you won't have to shoot all 20. After the first 2 fall, the others will run away and I will bet they won't be rocking any more cars. Problem solved.
Quote: speedycrap
STEALING A CIGAR is NOT punishable by DEATH. I think Mr. BROWN was annoying. Mr. BROWN was an asshole. But shooting an UNARMED man/woman should not happen in this society we live in. Put this case to trial is good because it will remind the police NOT to shoot and kill. 6 or 10 shoots??????? Killing a person (armed or unarmed), (white or black), will have serious consequence.
No, but disobeying a cop then physically attacking him will very likely lead to a person getting shot.
And sorry, but this is not television. The cop did not have time to think how to shoot without killing. All the shots would have happened in less time than it takes you to read this sentence. Life is not what you watch on the screen.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is a difference between when you have riots like this and need a real SWAT team and daily police work. But we are getting to where the regular cops are getting to be militarized and that scares the crap out of me. Cops might not like this statement, but I want them to be concerned they might get blown away on every raid or stop. Because if they have this concern then they will not stop or raid for petty reasons. When the government has no fear of the people then you are on the very short road to tyranny.
I agree partially.
However, I agree with police militarization, if they are more uniformly disciplined, preferably from a centralized source and with careful oversight to prevent corrupt local departments from doing the kind of things that concern you.
Having a strong presence throughout our country will prevent a lot of crime, especially in not so nice neighborhoods.
Quote: speedycrap
STEALING A CIGAR is NOT punishable by DEATH. I think Mr. BROWN was annoying. Mr. BROWN was an asshole. But shooting an UNARMED man/woman should not happen in this society we live in. Put this case to trial is good because it will remind the police NOT to shoot and kill. 6 or 10 shoots??????? Killing a person (armed or unarmed), (white or black), will have serious consequence.
I agree that stealing a cigar should not be punishable by death. But the fact remains Mr Brown had been committing a crime, and every indication is, this was not his first time. When he decided to continually commit illegal acts, he accepted a certain amount of risk. His choices were going to cause interactions with the police, and not all of the interactions were going to be textbook. Unfortunately this was one of them. Many people are portraying this as he was sitting in the street, hands in the air, and he was shot in cold blood. I seriously doubt this is how it went down, and if the GJ had found this to be true, I am sure they would have indicted. So, in the end, you are left with a criminal element, who had just committed a crime, and an officer attempted to stop him. He had just brazenly stolen some cigars, don't you think he may have been feeling a bit untouchable? Perhaps he didn't feel like following the police instructions?
If you are going to continually ignore the law, and commit crimes, you are not always going to get treated fairly, and why should you, since you are not treating society fairly either. Unfortunately, pushing the criminal line cost this young man lost his life.
Quote: GandlerI agree partially.
However, I agree with police militarization, if they are more uniformly disciplined, preferably from a centralized source and with careful oversight to prevent corrupt local departments from doing the kind of things that concern you.
Having a strong presence throughout our country will prevent a lot of crime, especially in not so nice neighborhoods.
Doesn't our system of independent authorities protect us a bit from a militarized state? We have local police, county police, state police, federal authorities, and the military. If they all reported to one higher command, I would be worried. But as long as they remain independent, but cooperative, I think we have a workable solution.
Quote: RaleighCrapsDoesn't our system of independent authorities protect us a bit from a militarized state? We have local police, county police, state police, federal authorities, and the military. If they all reported to one higher command, I would be worried. But as long as they remain independent, but cooperative, I think we have a workable solution.
Why would that worry you?
Independent departments might sound nice, and it is to some extent, but, what if there is a corrupt chief (as there have been many) who takes advantage of not answering to anyone regularly.
Federalized police would solve a lot of problems and also scare local police out of corruption.
Quote: GandlerWhy would that worry you?
Independent departments might sound nice, and it is to some extent, but, what if there is a corrupt chief (as there have been many) who takes advantage of not answering to anyone regularly.
Federalized police would solve a lot of problems and also scare local police out of corruption.
Don't we already have federal police? What is the FBI? How about ATF, DEA, etc.? Not to mention the federal DOJ.
I don't think they get involved in day to day incidents, but I am pretty sure they will become involved if there is a state or local police agency that starts getting out of hand.
Quote: GandlerI agree partially.
However, I agree with police militarization, if they are more uniformly disciplined, preferably from a centralized source and with careful oversight to prevent corrupt local departments from doing the kind of things that concern you.
Chicago, NYC, and LA show this not at all to be the case. In 1970s NYC the cops were often the best armed and toughest gang out there. Small towns can have the same problems. Plus we have this "there ought to be a law" mentality in the USA. More laws ean more reasons for cops to be able to roust the population whenever they care to. Some charges, say Mopery, were invented so cops could haul people in or get certain groups off the streets. Yet the public keeps wanting more and more laws for narrow and narrower reasons.
Quote: Gandler
Federalized police would solve a lot of problems and also scare local police out of corruption.
This would be one of the scariest and most unconstitutional things I could imagine.
Quote: speedycrapSTEALING A CIGAR is NOT punishable by DEATH. I think Mr. BROWN was annoying. Mr. BROWN was an asshole. But shooting an UNARMED man/woman should not happen in this society we live in. Put this case to trial is good because it will remind the police NOT to shoot and kill. 6 or 10 shoots??????? Killing a person (armed or unarmed), (white or black), will have serious consequence.
Mr. Brown was not "punished"--the evidence presented supports that he was aggressive towards an officer and put the officer in a position that no one wants to be in...having to potentially discharge their service weapon. Mr. Brown had a choice and he made a bad one. No one made him be aggressive to the officer; no one made him continue to be aggressive once he had already been shot once.
Choices. He made bad ones.
I believe there are some bad cops on this force.
I've read some pretty horrible stories of police abuse in this town.
Black out of towner gets stopped, arrest warrant, cops beat him up, mistake, no arrest warrant, cant just let him go, so they arrest him for assault, bleeding on a uniform.
Due all the police abuse in the past, this town was a powder keg getting ready to explode.
That all said, my feeling is this might have been a justifiable shooting.
I watched the video in the store where Michael Brown stole the box of cigars.
This was only 10 min prior to the shooting and Michael Brown was acting like a total thug in that store.
Due to Michael Brown thuggish in the store, he acted thugish toward the cop, hitting the cop, going for the gun, walking away then turning around to rush the cop.
Generally I dont side with cops or zimmerman in controversial cases, but in this case, I really wonder.
I think the residents of Ferguson are sick of all the police abuse.
Darren Wilson was a part of that abuse, he arrested a guy simply for videotaping him. Cops, in todays era of youtube, know they can be videotaped.
I am just not sure this shooting case is representative of police abuse in the past that residents have had to endure.
Quote: AZDuffmanChicago, NYC, and LA show this not at all to be the case. In 1970s NYC the cops were often the best armed and toughest gang out there. Small towns can have the same problems. Plus we have this "there ought to be a law" mentality in the USA. More laws ean more reasons for cops to be able to roust the population whenever they care to. Some charges, say Mopery, were invented so cops could haul people in or get certain groups off the streets. Yet the public keeps wanting more and more laws for narrow and narrower reasons.
This would be one of the scariest and most unconstitutional things I could imagine.
How is federal police doing local police work and oversight unconstitutional?
Plus "tough' cops are not always good, local NYC (and LA) was also known for a lot of corruption and brutality back then...
And if you go further back to the 1920s during prohibition, many local departments would be fully corrupt with local gangs, which was a good example of why Federalized police were necessary to break the ties to organized crime.
Quote: terapinedIts pretty sad what the town of Ferguson has been going thru.
I believe there are some bad cops on this force.
I've read some pretty horrible stories of police abuse in this town.
Black out of towner gets stopped, arrest warrant, cops beat him up, mistake, no arrest warrant, cant just let him go, so they arrest him for assault, bleeding on a uniform.
Due all the police abuse in the past, this town was a powder keg getting ready to explode.
That all said, my feeling is this might have been a justifiable shooting.
I watched the video in the store where Michael Brown stole the box of cigars.
This was only 10 min prior to the shooting and Michael Brown was acting like a total thug in that store.
Due to Michael Brown thuggish in the store, he acted thugish toward the cop, hitting the cop, going for the gun, walking away then turning around to rush the cop.
Generally I dont side with cops or zimmerman in controversial cases, but in this case, I really wonder.
I think the residents of Ferguson are sick of all the police abuse.
Darren Wilson was a part of that abuse, he arrested a guy simply for videotaping him. Cops, in todays era of youtube, know they can be videotaped.
I am just not sure this shooting case is representative of police abuse in the past that residents have had to endure.
If all that is true about the cops in Ferguson, being aggressive towards them serves no purpose. Things may need to change but becoming a dead victim changes nothing.
Quote: speedycrap
STEALING A CIGAR is NOT punishable by DEATH. I think Mr. BROWN was annoying. Mr. BROWN was an asshole. But shooting an UNARMED man/woman should not happen in this society we live in. Put this case to trial is good because it will remind the police NOT to shoot and kill. 6 or 10 shoots??????? Killing a person (armed or unarmed), (white or black), will have serious consequence.
In broad daylight and at twenty paces its murder.
At night within grappling distance, while falling backwards because you've been shoved by a very large, strong and belligerent youth who is continuing his attack as you fall into the confining spaces of a police cruiser and have limited mobility to defend yourself, your firearm or to escape, its far less likely to be thought of as murder.
New Zealand police would not comprehend this case at all. They are unarmed.
Where do you want to draw the lines?
Quote: GandlerHow is federal police doing local police work and oversight unconstitutional?
Simple.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Quote:Plus "tough' cops are not always good, local NYC (and LA) was also known for a lot of corruption and brutality back then...
Yes, NYC was terrible. Movies were made about how bad it was. OTOH, PC has stopped a lot of good, common sense police work. A good cop can usually tell who is up to less than pure motives. Years ago the cop would tell a group of kids to "keep moving" because he knew they had no purpose on the street. He does that today he gets accused of "profiling." In smaller places, or even in "neighborhoody" parts of big cities good cops have a good idea who did something right away. Many of us grew up in a place where when something happened the cops drove to the same house to question someone, and they were usually right.
Quote:And if you go further back to the 1920s during prohibition, many local departments would be fully corrupt with local gangs, which was a good example of why Federalized police were necessary to break the ties to organized crime.
Yes, break the rings, then send the feds home. Government should be as local as possible.
Quote: speedycrapSTEALING A CIGAR is NOT punishable by DEATH. I think Mr. BROWN was annoying. Mr. BROWN was an asshole. But shooting an UNARMED man/woman should not happen in this society we live in. Put this case to trial is good because it will remind the police NOT to shoot and kill. 6 or 10 shoots??????? Killing a person (armed or unarmed), (white or black), will have serious consequence.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI agree that stealing a cigar should not be punishable by death. But the fact remains Mr Brown had been committing a crime, and every indication is, this was not his first time. When he decided to continually commit illegal acts, he accepted a certain amount of risk. His choices were going to cause interactions with the police, and not all of the interactions were going to be textbook.....
If you are going to continually ignore the law, and commit crimes, you are not always going to get treated fairly, and why should you, since you are not treating society fairly either. Unfortunately, pushing the criminal line cost this young man lost his life.
You choose your own actions, but the consequences are chosen for you. Mr. Brown learned this the hard way, didn't he?
How many rioters last night got shot by business owners protecting their stores? Dumbass people were out there to riot regardless of the verdict, hoping to anonymously get away with setting fires and breaking stuff, and instead learned there's gonna be a price to pay for their actions.
Quote: FleaStiffIn broad daylight and at twenty paces its murder.
At night within grappling distance, while falling backwards because you've been shoved by a very large, strong and belligerent youth who is continuing his attack as you fall into the confining spaces of a police cruiser and have limited mobility to defend yourself, your firearm or to escape, its far less likely to be thought of as murder.
New Zealand police would not comprehend this case at all. They are unarmed.
Where do you want to draw the lines?
Same way the lines are drawn on the forum. If you continually walk the edge, or break the rules, you get nuked.
In real life, if you continually commit crimes, or walk the illegal edge, you may get nuked. And no one should raise any questions when it happens.
I know there are a few cops who abuse their authority levels. If society was more civilized, those bad cops would stand out like sore thumbs, and could be dealt with much more swiftly and severely. However, because there is so much criminal, and thuggish, activity, it is much harder to spot the bad cops, from good cops put in bad situations. Clean up the criminal element and things will greatly improve.
Quote: onenickelmiracleHell no to a military occupation on our own soil. It's the last thing we need considering the historically low congressional approvals where it's almost questionable already whether we're ruled or served.
"almost questionable already whether we're ruled or served."
First time I have seen that statement, and man is it thought provoking.........
Quote: WizardI'm not an attorney, so could be wrong on this, but I thought the standard of a Grand Jury was at least a 51% chance of guilt of anything to ... I'm not sure of the term ... but to send it to a full criminal trial. You may it sound like the standard is 1%. You could be right, I'm just throwing the challenge flag.
Every state/county is different...so I don't pretend to know what the bar is in MO. But my attorney friend in MD likes to say he could get an indictment of a ham sandwich. So I think the bar is pretty low. Keep in mind the a.g. just has to prove that there is merit for bringing charges. So if they couldn't clear that bar. I'd say it's just as well to spare the public a sham trial.
As for the riots. Much like in LA after the Rodney King beating, the morons rioting are mostly burning and looting in their own hood. Which mostly just hurts the minority business owners in that area. Not so smart.
