Yes, because we know that a 5 dollar box of cigars is worth more then a black life. Don't you have anything better to do with your time then spread your racist nonsense here Max?

And any doubt that this is max is removed.

*sigh* Actually my point was that the life of anybody is more important then protecting property rights.

First off, Brown was taped stealing the cigars. He also was shown that he assaulted the clerk/manager.

A description was put on the radio. When the officwer came upon Brown, he was walking down the middle of the street and was just asked to move to the side walk. Brown refused and attack the officer. Was he shot, yes he was. Did he shoot him in the back and while he was on the ground, no he was not.

By forensics and eye witnesses this was proven.

The Grand Jury deemed the officer was not in the wrong.

Then rioting began. Stores were burned and looted. Police and civilian cars were torched. Lambert airfield trafic was moved to not fly over that area becaus of gun fire!

If nayone knows about juries, if it were not a true bill, it would be thrown out

but it wasn't.

So proof was given and found creditable to not insict the officer!

But instead there was rioting. Now those people who lived thed and worked there are out of jobs. No jobs equals no wages which eqals no money spent in the community. So, who loses? The folks who live there, not the outsiders who come in and stir things up. Maybe some of those businesses will never open again. How does this help that city?

Just a side bar.

Blacks wonder why there are not more blacks on local P D's? Well Kansas City Metro Departments had a job fair for Blacks and Latinos. 17 people showed up amd were put numbered by the officers 3 to 1. Now explain that and make sense of your post first!!!

If proof was there that the shooting was just, then just leave it alone.

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

Learn something new everyday.

I'm local, too. My view on that was that McCulloch didn't want the cop charged, but he needed political cover for not charging him. By handing it off to a grand jury, he could wash his hands of the decision not to charge.

He should have just charged the cop by information, held a preliminary hearing, and tried the thing. The result would have probably been the same and people would less pissed off.

Agreed 100%.

I find it interesting that Outlaw got banned for his antics, but this idiot is still posting.

I think it was weird because they knew they had to try to give enough information to the public to help them understand why the grand jury made the determination they did in hopes of preventing violent and destructive protests. Of course it was not typical. You don't typically have that kind of attention focused on most grand jury decisions. There are rarely press conferences to tell people what a grand jury determined. This was an extreme circumstance.

I don't think people would have been any less pissed off after a jury trial if the result was the same.

From the information I gleaned out of the news conference and other things they've released online, I completely understand why they didn't press charges. Brown's blood in the vehicle, gun shots in the vehicle, the pattern of Brown's blood down the street showing that he turned around and was moving back toward the police car all indicate that the officer felt justifiably threatened, IMO.

I understand, too. When the prosecutor takes it on himself to act as defense, presents all the potentially exculpatory evidence, allows the accused to testify for himself, fails to look for probable cause as he would in any other case, and then essentially tells the GJ to do what they think is right without giving a recommendation as he would in any other case, the outcome isn't surprising.

You've actually highlighted the problem with the way this was handled. No one gets this kind of defense from a prosecutor.

He'll be banned soon enough, I imagine—max has probably been banned more times than Iota Guy.

+1, pbear19.

That's exactly what stuck with me from the array of reporting and other coverage I've read/heard. I'm also left wondering how many of last night's rioters/looters were actually registered voters, you know, actually participating (however minimally) in the process of their own political empowerment.

I think people would have been less pissed if a trial resulted in no conviction. There weren't riots after Zimmerman was acquitted or after the Jordan Davis hung jury. People were angry but at least they were being heard. This smacks of cover-up.

There was enough evidence from witnesses to get past a preliminary hearing if McCullough just filed charges (ie. "charging by information"). The evidence would have been heard in open court, rather than behind closed doors. The process is as important as the result.

Grand juries stink. Too secretive.

You had doubts?