Ferguson, MO

[DrPhil]

There were peaceful Ferguson neighborhoods where the violent protests did not reach.

In the area with the violent protests, I hope the people who live in that area never petition to local representatives about increasing employment and business revenue in the area. If they ever wonder why companies do not open shop in this area, they can play the videos of businesses being torn apart by rioters. The destructive and violent protesters are a relatively small percentage of the total amount of protesters, and some of them came from outside of Ferguson to act a complete idiot. But the results are all the same.

The NAACP president on CBS This Morning.

The other national and international protests appeared more calm.

More people need to remember that systemic inequalities and patterns of behavior do not mean that every incident is a result of injustice. That cannot be assumed which is why we have a legal process in an attempt to span beyond personal opinions and civil unrest. Michael Brown's family will most likely be assisted with filing a civil suit.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

MysticCat, a question. I've seen legal commentary on several networks discussing basically a "data dump," by the prosecutor, giving all the evidence to the grand jury and letting them sort it out rather than guiding them to the charge he wanted or thought most appropriate.

Except for a Ferguson police union representative, all the legal eagles I saw though the behavior quite odd and out of form for the role of a prosecutor in a grand jury setting. Your thoughts?

On the local level the Grand Jury decision's been made. But a lot about this process, as reported, stinks.

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.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by pbear19

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.

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.

[ZetaPhi708.20]

Originally Posted by pbear19

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.

That was almost the 100% agreement on most of the Progressive Radio talk shows today. And also that McCulloch is from a family of cops, and his Dad was killed in the line of duty.

[Low D Flat]

all the legal eagles I saw though the behavior quite odd and out of form for the role of a prosecutor in a grand jury setting. Your thoughts?

To this legal eagle, totally bizarre. Here's a data-based take on indictments, grand juries, and accusations against police:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/f...darren-wilson/

[Phrozen Sands]

So basically here we have a trained police officer with a badge, pepper spray, a taser and a baton, but instead he damn near empties his clip with bullets at an unarmed 18-year-old kid. I've seen white people jump all over police, but they get shot with a taser or pepper sprayed. It just seems to me that in America today in 2014, a black life isn't as valuable as a white life.

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Lol. Banned more than Iota Guy? Wow.

If my GC memory serves me correctly, yes. Max has been banned many more times than "dude."

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

So basically here we have a trained police officer with a badge, pepper spray, a taser and a baton, but instead he damn near empties his clip with bullets at an unarmed 18-year-old kid.

That is the problem that has been highlighted over and over in the news reports today. Not once have I heard an explanation of what happened to make Wilson feel it was necessary to shoot to kill. The first two shots were at close range--what merited use of a gun instead of a taser? After that, why not shoot for the leg or wherever else--why were kill shots to the head necessary? He was large and aggressive and threatening so you had to kill him before he...bumrushed you with no weapon?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

If my GC memory serves me correctly, yes. Max has been banned many more times than "dude."

That is the problem that has been highlighted over and over in the news reports today. Not once have I heard an explanation of what happened to make Wilson feel it was necessary to shoot to kill. The first two shots were at close range--what merited use of a gun instead of a taser? After that, why not shoot for the leg or wherever else--why were kill shots to the head necessary? He was large and aggressive and threatening so you had to kill him before he...bumrushed you with no weapon?

1. Wilson didn't have a taser.
2. Police arent trained to shoot at legs, or shoot guns out of people's hands, or shoot car tires or any other Hollywood TV stuff that you see.
3. According to Wilsons testimony Brown was going for his gun while he was in his cruiser. Evidence in the form of Browns blood on Wilsons gun supports his account.
4. I feel like people think the only way this should have turned out was Brown getting Wilsons gun then using it to kill Wilson.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

1. Wilson didn't have a taser.
2. Police arent trained to shoot at legs, or shoot guns out of people's hands, or shoot car tires or any other Hollywood TV stuff that you see.

Exactly.

Trust, there would be more criticisms of law enforcement if they were trained to do the things depicted by Hollywood. More people would accuse them of unlawful and unnecessary use of force and firearms if they could shoot people in the leg. Instead, we want officers to remain well-trained and selective in their use of a firearm; and we want that use of a firearm to be precisely for its intended purpose.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

If my GC memory serves me correctly, yes. Max has been banned many more times than "dude."

That is the problem that has been highlighted over and over in the news reports today. Not once have I heard an explanation of what happened to make Wilson feel it was necessary to shoot to kill. The first two shots were at close range--what merited use of a gun instead of a taser? After that, why not shoot for the leg or wherever else--why were kill shots to the head necessary? He was large and aggressive and threatening so you had to kill him before he...bumrushed you with no weapon?

Lmao @ "dude". He said that a lot.

In response to the other part of your post, I agree. According to the testimony, Brown ran, Wilson pursued him, Brown stopped, Wilson stopped, Brown turned around and came towards Wilson, more shots were fired. It's just funny how black men are shot and killed by police officers 21 more times than white men are. Things that make me go hmmm.

Not to be negative, but there WILL be another Ferguson incident. That's just how this country values black lives. They don't.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

In response to the other part of your post, I agree. According to the testimony, Brown ran, Wilson pursued him, Brown stopped, Wilson stopped, Brown turned around and came towards Wilson, more shots were fired. It's just funny how black men are shot and killed by police officers 21 more times than white men are. Things that make me go hmmm.

I think some more information is warranted here:

http://www.propublica.org/article/de...lack-and-white

[StealthMode]

My computer froze and my entire post got deleted.

TL;DR--What makes you feel #4? I'm incredibly surprised to see that comment because every single person I've encountered and comment I've read indicates people feel Wilson should have used a non-lethal way to stop Brown so I can't imagine where that comes from. Care to elaborate?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

My computer froze and my entire post got deleted.

TL;DR--What makes you feel #4? I'm incredibly surprised to see that comment because every single person I've encountered and comment I've read indicates people feel Wilson should have used a non-lethal way to stop Brown so I can't imagine where that comes from. Care to elaborate?

Read the blog post I linked.

It comes from the amount of ridiculous, unrealistic statements I've read about what Wilson should and/or should not have done. People lay blame on Wilson for defending himself but no one bats an eye about Brown going for Wilsons gun in the first place. I took a "wait and see" approach to all of this but as more evidence that was brought to the GJ is now out in the public the continued, and in some circles expanded, martyring of Brown is getting annoying.


https://www.thepolicewifelifeblog.co...ed-up-for-that

[Low D Flat]

I feel like people think the only way this should have turned out was Brown getting Wilsons gun then using it to kill Wilson.

Is that a reasonable fear? Does this chain of events ever happen? And if Brown really was going after Wilson's gun, shouldn't that have been a clue that he didn't have a gun himself?

[DrPhil]

After watching The View, some of the biggest things to come from this:

1. Police need cameras and recorders on uniforms to protect themselves and the public at all times.

2. The public needs to know more about law enforcement training and the policies regarding use of "force", use of "deadly force", and firearm use. Most states have this information available online. This also highlights why officers cannot shoot to warn or injure, as depicted on shows like Criminal Minds.

3. Not all officers have tasers and not all members of the public agree with the use of tasers. We can't have it both ways. Either pepper spray, taser, baton(?), or gun. Some police departments carry multiple methods. That doesn't mean they will have access to every method during a physical altercation. I don't want an officer dying because the officer couldn't access the taser during an altercation and was afraid to use the police gun.