Guest MattP Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 I think at the very least it should have gone to trial. There was enough probable cause for that, though evidently the grand jury didn't agree, for reasons known only to them, and so it goes. I also think that sticking pinhole cameras on cops will help with cases like this in the future. The really bad thing about this is that whether morally or legally right or wrong it's a massive double win for the white supremacist crowd. 'Their' man (white authority figure) got off, and when the inevitable unrest over this verdict occurs they can point all the fingers they like and say, "See? I told you they were animals..." Depressing times. I disagree, 70 witnesses and 1 grand jury also seem to. They have far more access than me and you and judging on the things I have read I can more than see why a gun was pulled and fired. You've mentioned it twice now but (fairly non existant US) white supremacist crowd should have no basis on whether on not you send someone to trial or not, you judge it on the facts of the case, not inf a group 1000 miles away might make some political capital out of it.
David Guiza Posted 25 November 2014 Author Posted 25 November 2014 The press is playing it usual game of winding things up - photos of the guy when he was a kid, not telling us he just robbed a store, barely sharing the evidence the grand jury heard at all. If you are on that Grand Jury, and the witnesses tell you that this man charged at a policeman, you have photos of said policeman with facial bruising from being attacked, then it seems a fair judgement to me. Personally I find a lot of the coverage and protesting and rioting to be more likely to influence the outcome adversely to Policeman, and potentially to Justice. I agree with you and Matt that the media coverage has been very much one sided, painting a picture of a completley innocent young black man who did nothing to aggrivate the situation, which by all accounts isn't true. However, he was shot 6 times, unarmed. Granted it's a completley different country, rules, morals etc, but if this happened in the UK there would be uproar and perhaps a conviction. As Leiscmac said, police abusing their authority is something that needs to be looked at - it's hardly new either, this kind of thing has been going on for decades now.
Guest MattP Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 The press is playing it usual game of winding things up - photos of the guy when he was a kid, not telling us he just robbed a store, barely sharing the evidence the grand jury heard at all. If you are on that Grand Jury, and the witnesses tell you that this man charged at a policeman, you have photos of said policeman with facial bruising from being attacked, then it seems a fair judgement to me. Personally I find a lot of the coverage and protesting and rioting to be more likely to influence the outcome adversely to Policeman, and potentially to Justice. It's the usual crowd again, the ones obsessed with tarring the USA as a racist country, used to get their kicks from telling us all how the country was so damn racist they could never vote in a black president and when that left them with egg on thier faces it led them to plucking out cases like this and George Zimmerman to try and still make the out of date viewpoint. I completely agree on the coverage, disgraceful.
leicsmac Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 I disagree, 70 witnesses and 1 grand jury also seem to. They have far more access than me and you and judging on the things I have read I can more than see why a gun was pulled and fired. You've mentioned it twice now but (fairly non existant US) white supremacist crowd should have no basis on whether on not you send someone to trial or not, you judge it on the facts of the case, not inf a group 1000 miles away might make some political capital out of it. I agree, as I said they reached the decision not to indict based on more evidence than you or I have seen. What their reasons are for doing so is, as I said, their own. I'm of the opinion that I don't know enough about the particulars of the case to make a judgement on the grand jurys decision either way (despite my gut going in favour of it going to trial, that's not good enough, I know). I'm just pointing out how the result, legally or morally right or wrong, WILL be used to further fuel racial divide in the (particularly Southern) US, which is a shame, and is being picked up by white supremacists as a massive political football thrown into the end zone (pardon the metaphor). It's happening already, if you check the feed of several right-wing correspondents (Coulter, Nugent et al) on Twitter. It's the usual crowd again, the ones obsessed with tarring the USA as a racist country, used to get their kicks from telling us all how the country was so damn racist they could never vote in a black president and when that left them with egg on thier faces it led them to plucking out cases like this and George Zimmerman to try and still make the out of date viewpoint. I completely agree on the coverage, disgraceful. Electing a black President means that over half of the people who bothered to vote aren't racist, nothing more. There are places in the Southern US where the racial divide (as well as the material one, and the two aren't always connected) is absolutely massive. I'm not sure why you think it isn't the case when you have been there yourself. As far as the media coverage goes, both sides have been spinning as best they can. For every MSNBC you have a Fox News. The popular Internet and social media has been the only place where there has been a reasonable in favour of Brown, really, and even that's tempered by opinions from the other side. Do you have a view on police abusing their authority, as was mentioned by DG and myself above? Edit: I actually made this point when the story first broke, looking back. As before, I think the issue isn't so much with race (though that is still a problem), it's more about people abusing their authority to give people they don't like a hard time, regardless of skin colour.
Finnegan Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 Why would you want to read a word Coulter has to say?
MPH Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 The only people to have seen every peice of evidence and every witness statement havre fused to indite him. What's the problem When you consider his parents call for peace then any violence from this point on is purely because they want an excuse to riot.
Buce Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 America: the only country to pass from barbarism to decadence without an intervening period of civilization. (attributed to various sources)
Leeds Fox Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 I agree, as I said they reached the decision not to indict based on more evidence than you or I have seen. What their reasons are for doing so is, as I said, their own. I'm of the opinion that I don't know enough about the particulars of the case to make a judgement on the grand jurys decision either way (despite my gut going in favour of it going to trial, that's not good enough, I know). I'm just pointing out how the result, legally or morally right or wrong, WILL be used to further fuel racial divide in the (particularly Southern) US, which is a shame, and is being picked up by white supremacists as a massive political football thrown into the end zone (pardon the metaphor). It's happening already, if you check the feed of several right-wing correspondents (Coulter, Nugent et al) on Twitter. Electing a black President means that over half of the people who bothered to vote aren't racist, nothing more. There are places in the Southern US where the racial divide (as well as the material one, and the two aren't always connected) is absolutely massive. I'm not sure why you think it isn't the case when you have been there yourself. As far as the media coverage goes, both sides have been spinning as best they can. For every MSNBC you have a Fox News. The popular Internet and social media has been the only place where there has been a reasonable in favour of Brown, really, and even that's tempered by opinions from the other side. Do you have a view on police abusing their authority, as was mentioned by DG and myself above? Edit: I actually made this point when the story first broke, looking back. As before, I think the issue isn't so much with race (though that is still a problem), it's more about people abusing their authority to give people they don't like a hard time, regardless of skin colour. Assuming every voter wasn't black? The bold also implies that every non-Obama voter could be considered racist, which more than likely isn't the case whatsoever.
leicsmac Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 Why would you want to read a word Coulter has to say? Because far too many other people do and believe every word. The only people to have seen every peice of evidence and every witness statement havre fused to indite him. What's the problem When you consider his parents call for peace then any violence from this point on is purely because they want an excuse to riot. That's fine, as long as the grand jurys verdict was reached purely on the basis of evidence and testimony. As an aside, I remember reading that the prosecuting attorney decided to take a very 'hands off' approach to this case - rather than pushing for an indictment and shoehorning the grand jury into one, he let the grand jury loose with the evidence and basically told them to get on with it. I'd actually like to see that in more criminal cases in the US, regardless of the verdict here.
leicsmac Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 Assuming every voter wasn't black? The bold also implies that every non-Obama voter could be considered racist, which more than likely isn't the case whatsoever. I know, I was making a sweeping statement and replying to the perceived facetiousness of Matt's post (regarding the opinion that racism isn't a problem in the US any more) with facetiousness of my own.
Leeds Fox Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 I know, I was making a sweeping statement and replying to the perceived facetiousness of Matt's post (regarding the opinion that racism isn't a problem in the US any more) with facetiousness of my own. Ah, fair enough. I think the point is a very hard one to argue, and only the true answer could come from an impartial non-racist white American.
Guest MattP Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 Do you have a view on police abusing their authority, as was mentioned by DG and myself above? Edit: I actually made this point when the story first broke, looking back. As before, I think the issue isn't so much with race (though that is still a problem), it's more about people abusing their authority to give people they don't like a hard time, regardless of skin colour. Yeah they always have and always will, a related story on one of them today was a US cop beating a homeless man to death, it's what cops do, it's so strange and sad that we only get upset about this sort of thing when the victim is black and the cop white, all incidents where someone dies due to police using force should be thoroughly investigated. I agree on the final point. The public and media are more obsessed with race when it comes to the US than anyone else. Why would you want to read a word Coulter has to say? Never even heard of her until I just googled her, do you lefties actually going around intentionally looking for right wing commentators to be offended by? The last place anyone should go for political commentary is the states, it's worse than here for overeaction and hyperbole from all sides.
Merging Cultures Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 The US is horribly racist. I might move back there at some point, but I don't really want to, but that is where the jobs are. The case should have gone to trial. If a policeman can see their assailant or other criminal, and they have a clear line of fire, then it should take one shot maximum. But they need to try conflict resolution first and then less lethal weapons. If a weapon is produced, shoot by all means.
Leeds Fox Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 The US is horribly racist. I might move back there at some point, but I don't really want to, but that is where the jobs are. The case should have gone to trial. If a policeman can see their assailant or other criminal, and they have a clear line of fire, then it should take one shot maximum. But they need to try conflict resolution first and then less lethal weapons. If a weapon is produced, shoot by all means. I'm not questioning what you're saying, I just haven't seen the full report. Were all the shots fired by one officer?
GingerrrFox Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 The officer is a dead man walking for the rest of his life. Rightly or wrongly there is definitely a witch hunt on his head.
Merging Cultures Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 I'm not questioning what you're saying, I just haven't seen the full report. Were all the shots fired by one officer? This might help you: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-brown-shooting-what-happened-on-that-august-day-and-how-bad-could-the-protests-be-this-time-following-the-grand-jury-decision-9877037.html
Jordan Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 What do the presidential elections have to do with this? Saying that there's no real race problem in the U.S. is a favorite lazy argument of the right. From all the coverage of the killing of Michael Brown and its aftermath, we've learned that there has been a big problem and divide between the cops and the public in Ferguson and St. Louis County. The police's own data shows that if you're black in Ferguson, to say the least, you're many more times likely to be given a hard time by the police than if you're not. A grand jury isn't supposed to determine guilt or innocence, but that's how the DA McCulloch seemed to handle everything. I'm hardly convinced from what he's said and from what evidence St. Louis County has released that this case shouldn't have at least gone to trial. A grand jury declining to indict a suspect is extremely rare. From the beginning, the police and the DA's office closed ranks and protected themselves. They never wanted this to go to a grand jury and they sure as hell didn't want this to go to trial. McCulloch wanted to protect his boys in the PD--any DA can get a grand jury case to trial if he wants to. It's an absolute disgrace that Darren Wilson will face no consequences for the dog shit policing he did that day, let alone a trial for this.
GingerrrFox Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 What I don't understand is how firing 12 shots at somebody can be seen as anything other than an intent to kill? It's not like he shot Brown once or twice he even said so himself that he didn't know how many bullets he fired. Surely that's not right?
ADK Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 I'll admit I haven't dedicated a lot of time to this, but all the evidence I've read suggests the shooting was justified? It seems the authorities have behaved very well considering the amount of provocation. We had the same thing in London a few years ago, bunch of opportunists decided to go on a riot after a police shooting, Does that make us a racist country?
Harry - LCFC Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 I agree, as I said they reached the decision not to indict based on more evidence than you or I have seen. What their reasons are for doing so is, as I said, their own. I'm of the opinion that I don't know enough about the particulars of the case to make a judgement on the grand jurys decision either way (despite my gut going in favour of it going to trial, that's not good enough, I know). I'm just pointing out how the result, legally or morally right or wrong, WILL be used to further fuel racial divide in the (particularly Southern) US, which is a shame, and is being picked up by white supremacists as a massive political football thrown into the end zone (pardon the metaphor). It's happening already, if you check the feed of several right-wing correspondents (Coulter, Nugent et al) on Twitter. It should also be pointed out this is being used by those on the left too. The police are being accused by some of wanting to murder black people. While I understand why black people mistrust the police, putting that kind of hyper-exaggerated view into people's minds will do nothing to mend relations. I get the impression a lot of people think it's not far from the truth too. The whole thing is America at it's worst. So much of the 'discussion' that takes place involves black and white people trying to paint the other as the bad ones. It all makes me very thankful that, on the whole, people in Britain don't think of race as being particularly important.
DennisNedry Posted 25 November 2014 Posted 25 November 2014 Why have the black community responded by torching the town?! It's just gonna give the racists more ammunition for justifying why the cop 'had' to shoot.
Guest MattP Posted 26 November 2014 Posted 26 November 2014 Scenes last night were laughable. Looting and vandalism absurdly described as protest. Police should be opening fire, it's disgraceful good decent people have to see their businesses ruined because such thuggery is treated with kid gloves.
ozleicester Posted 26 November 2014 Posted 26 November 2014 Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings. 21 times greater... No wonder they are fighting.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.