Ferguson, MO

[seanahue.]

12?!?!?! that's insane

12 shots fired, 6 landed, 2 at close-range, 4 more at medium/long-range. 2 of the latter 4 were in the head. Excessive force IMO, regardless if he was fleeing or charging; the dude is a trained marksman.

Feelings on the verdict aside, rioting over it is a selfish choice. It should also be noted that this small minority of selfish individuals are giving an exceptionally poor public image to an African-American community whose vast majority does not agree with or condone their actions. More articles like this should be out there: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protesters-guard-stores_n_5684042.html instead of replaying people burning flags and cop cars.

 

[Turd.Ferguson]

Honestly this just reinforces that a pistol is the right option. I don't know much about tasers, but it seems from this video that if you miss you are screwed because you'd be reloading a whole cartridge after you fire. At least that's my understanding.

well you better not fucking miss...

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

So ferguson finds out that Michael Brown has been shot, and they violently riot, even though they really don't have all the facts yet. A jury is presented the facts, finds Officer Wilson legally innocent, and then ferguson goes into more violent riots. Can we not just put a huge glass dome over ferguson?

We should put a glass dome over the people who generalize thousands because of the actions of a few too.

First off, after Brown was initially shot and those riots started it was proven the the majority of looters weren't even from Ferguson, but still the entire city was labelled as rioters/looters.

People saying "Ferguson should be ashamed" or "Ferguson is a disgrace" or whatever just show how ignorant of the situation they actually are. You take the actions of a few hundred people and act like it represents the entire city.

That's like saying everyone in Keene, NH is to blame for the "riot" this year when it really was the actions of maybe a few hundred students.

 

[Bogs]

12?!?!?! that's insane

Like I said, listen to the interview.

 

[Davin]

He should have never pulled the gun out in the first place is the point. pull out the taser first.

not every cop has a taser.... they even commented that their department lacked tazers and could not supply Officer Wilson with one. Read before you solve problems in your Utopian society

 

[SnowshoeThompson]

It's cool guys Al Sharpton is going to make everything better.

 

[CaptainObvious.]

People are trying to march the fucking interstate in denver. And when the police blocked it so no one died from oh....you know....the fucking cars...they lost their shit.

They just interviewed a couple....they're so. Fucking. Stupid.

 

[theBearJew]

 

[theBearJew]

Oh yea, and this happened. WTF Seattle.

http://mikereport.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/and-now-they-blame-ferguson-on-the-jews/

 

[cobra_commander]

we have a special type of stupid here

 

[*TURBONERD*]

we have a special type of stupid here

Your cynicism might be my favorite part of it.

 

[cool_name]

12 shots fired, 6 landed, 2 at close-range, 4 more at medium/long-range. 2 of the latter 4 were in the head. Excessive force IMO, regardless if he was fleeing or charging; the dude is a trained marksman.

in that kind of situation cops are trained to fire multiple shots, not at all excessive

 

[Scaredwhiteboy]

I feel ya and what you're getting at. But, the black community deals with a lot more than just this one incident. For example:

That is off subject but they feel targeted and that feeling must suck. Especially when the police are there to protect and serve. Why does a small group of these people loot in this scenario or any other scenario I have no idea...

There is no way that bar on the right is only 3.7x bigger than the one on the left. That's some seriously duplicitous chart making right there.

 

[seanahue.]

in that kind of situation cops are trained to fire multiple shots, not at all excessive

if they're so well trained, then he should have given him two in the kneecaps and one in the dick. the number of shots isn't the excessive part, the part where he shoots him twice in the head is.

 

[Utard]

This is an honest question for you all, not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but how many of you know what a grand jury is/how it works?

 

[louie.mirags]

There is no way that bar on the right is only 3.7x bigger than the one on the left. That's some seriously duplicitous chart making right there.

definitely, I didn't study it too much. The sources are out there to prove the numbers though. I was just showing a reason that the black community would be upset with law enforcement for more reasons than this case.

 

[270on420out]

They've already proven this wasn't the case. Sit down and shut up

Ok. So he was assaulted in his vehicle. But rather than hitting the gas and driving a safe distance away, then arresting him, he decided "fuck it I'll just execute him instead".

 

[louie.mirags]

Ok. So he was assaulted in his vehicle. But rather than hitting the gas and driving a safe distance away, then arresting him, he decided "fuck it I'll just execute him instead".

I am not sold on shooting him as the answer but driving away and abandoning his oath to protect the community to not the answer. What if he would of went on a rampage and hurt civilians? Then, the cop would be way wrong.. When is driving away from the criminal ever an answer?

 

[270on420out]

I am not sold on shooting him as the answer but driving away and abandoning his oath to protect the community to not the answer. What if he would of went on a rampage and hurt civilians? Then, the cop would be way wrong.. When is driving away from the criminal ever an answer?

No drive a safe distance away, THEN arrest him

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

I am not sold on shooting him as the answer but driving away and abandoning his oath to protect the community to not the answer. What if he would of went on a rampage and hurt civilians? Then, the cop would be way wrong.. When is driving away from the criminal ever an answer?

I think he means driving out of the immediate danger (aka pulling away before Brown could have grabbed his gun) and then getting out and taking control of the situation. He wouldn't be abandoning anyone and would have been less likely to discharge his firearm.

 

[louie.mirags]

I think he means driving out of the immediate danger (aka pulling away before Brown could have grabbed his gun) and then getting out and taking control of the situation. He wouldn't be abandoning anyone and would have been less likely to discharge his firearm.

I mean I can see that somewhat in hindsight but that isn't going to make a 300lb man easier to arrest. What every cop needs is a taser.

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

I mean I can see that somewhat in hindsight but that isn't going to make a 300lb man easier to arrest. What every cop needs is a taser.

I agree, but the ultra conservative people in this thread think non-lethal force isn't effective in bringing down a large man...

 

[Jane6]

 

[Culture+]

no this thing is fucked

why is it every time there is a news story dealing with another guy(black or whatever) gets killed unarmed by police. america has problems with racism and law enforcement. we tend to favor white over other races in all instances; socioeconomic discrimination. Law enforcement is fucking backwards in this country, you have good cops that follow every power given by law to protect and serve. Then, you have cops who are so trigger happy that they wait for the next unarmed white,black, or brown kid to pump full of lead. The whole situation is complicated and fucked up and the same time.

Fuck that cop let em hang see how his family feels for a god damn change

 

[louie.mirags]

no this thing is fucked

why is it every time there is a news story dealing with another guy(black or whatever) gets killed unarmed by police. america has problems with racism and law enforcement. we tend to favor white over other races in all instances; socioeconomic discrimination. Law enforcement is fucking backwards in this country, you have good cops that follow every power given by law to protect and serve. Then, you have cops who are so trigger happy that they wait for the next unarmed white,black, or brown kid to pump full of lead. The whole situation is complicated and fucked up and the same time.

Fuck that cop let em hang see how his family feels for a god damn change

agreed for the most part

 

[J.D.]

I dunno guys that cop's testimony seemed pretty reasonable. I mean, maybe he was lying but I'd leave it to the people actually there and listening to him to make that judgment call.

 

[louie.mirags]

I dunno guys that cop's testimony seemed pretty reasonable. I mean, maybe he was lying but I'd leave it to the people actually there and listening to him to make that judgment call.

I worked in a police dept as a dispatcher and there were def some stand-up dudes there. There was also a few young cops who would mention how they couldn't wait for a thug to get out of line so they could fight em or taser them. It is a ego/alpha trait. One cop was even in some hot water for abuse to a criminal. I also have a NYPD buddy who is on a few youtube police brutality videos and his situation is not great either. I would embed the video but they will get your blood boiling. Whether you back the cop for getting physical or you back the people for getting pissed, the videos are hard to watch. My main point is some people do not mind when criminals get beat up on, or shot. However, our legal system is there to handle the penalties for the criminals. Being ok with cops abusing their power via violence is scary.

 

[deleted5]

Honestly this just reinforces that a pistol is the right option. I don't know much about tasers, but it seems from this video that if you miss you are screwed because you'd be reloading a whole cartridge after you fire. At least that's my understanding.

I'm sure in a few years if taser became the standers for cops they wouldnt fix that problem......

 

[louie.mirags]

I dunno guys that cop's testimony seemed pretty reasonable. I mean, maybe he was lying but I'd leave it to the people actually there and listening to him to make that judgment call.

I worked in a police dept as a dispatcher and there were def some stand-up dudes there. There was also a few young cops who would mention how they couldn't wait for a thug to get out of line so they could fight em or taser them. It is a ego/alpha trait. One cop was even in some hot water for abuse to a criminal. I also have a NYPD buddy who is on a few youtube police brutality videos and his situation is not great either. I would embed the video but they will get your blood boiling. Whether you back the cop for getting physical or you back the people for getting pissed, the videos are hard to watch. My main point is some people do not mind when criminals get beat up on, or shot. However, our legal system is there to handle the penalties for the criminals. Being ok with cops abusing their power via violence is scary.

I just want to add that self-defense is a different story. So many scattered facts for me to be ok with saying it was self-defense. But, my opinion doesn't matter the courts decided he was in the right

 

[J.D.]

My point is, read some of the guy's grand jury testimony.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

I mean, it sounds fair enough, if it's more or less true. In other words, if you believe what he says, he should not be indicted. And no one here is in a good position to assess his credibility. That's why we have people in the room listening to him tell his story.

In other words, it seems like people just want to be angry about this but don't actually have a good reason to.

 

[-emile-]

people just want to be angry about this but don't actually have a good reason to.

well yeah , I thought that was a pretty well known fact..

 

[dmski]

My point is, read some of the guy's grand jury testimony.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

I mean, it sounds fair enough, if it's more or less true. In other words, if you believe what he says, he should not be indicted. And no one here is in a good position to assess his credibility. That's why we have people in the room listening to him tell his story.

In other words, it seems like people just want to be angry about this but don't actually have a good reason to.

My feeling as well. Based on the facts this is how the jury ruled it.

People in ferguson have lost it. An absolute nightmare. Those radical protestors should be charged with hate crimes and terror for destroying the city.

 

[Utard]

In other words, it seems like people just want to be angry about this but don't actually have a good reason to.

Nope, sorry, people have every right to be pissed, because this trial was an absolute mockery of the "justice" system. Do you know what a grand jury is? The prosecutor controls the entire process. Every person who gets to enter that courtroom has to be vetted by the prosecutor. The defense's attorney isn't even allowed to be there unless the prosecutor OKs it. Grand juries are by and large these days vestigial structures. The purpose of a grand jury trial is just to indict a person on charges. That means that the grand jury's duty is just to say, "Yeah, we think there's enough evidence on the prosecutor's side to move the case to trial." There is no reason Wilson should not have been indicted. Even though he probably would have been eventually acquitted, there is at least enough evidence to raise the question as to whether this was a justified use of force. The only time a prosecutor fails to procure an indictment is when he doesn't want an indictment. People are pissed because the so-called justice system isn't even trying.

Also, fun fact, did you know that in 2010 out of 162000 grand juries, grand juries declined to deliver an indictment in only 11 cases? That's 0.007% of the time.

 

[madchronic]

I haven't really followed this much but I just saw this on Facebook.http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/...onal-info-online-in-ongoing-ferguson-dispute/

 

[saskskier]

Nope, sorry, people have every right to be pissed, because this trial was an absolute mockery of the "justice" system. Do you know what a grand jury is? The prosecutor controls the entire process. Every person who gets to enter that courtroom has to be vetted by the prosecutor. The defense's attorney isn't even allowed to be there unless the prosecutor OKs it. Grand juries are by and large these days vestigial structures. The purpose of a grand jury trial is just to indict a person on charges. That means that the grand jury's duty is just to say, "Yeah, we think there's enough evidence on the prosecutor's side to move the case to trial." There is no reason Wilson should not have been indicted. Even though he probably would have been eventually acquitted, there is at least enough evidence to raise the question as to whether this was a justified use of force. The only time a prosecutor fails to procure an indictment is when he doesn't want an indictment. People are pissed because the so-called justice system isn't even trying.

Also, fun fact, did you know that in 2010 out of 162000 grand juries, grand juries declined to deliver an indictment in only 11 cases? That's 0.007% of the time.

You realize JD is a lawyer right? Probably not the guy to be explaining legal process to...

 

[rememberscott]

The entire story is dumb this thread is dumb newschoolers isj dumb. People like u who cling to the media gives the popularity that it doesn't deserve. Go outside jackoff onto my moms face or slmeyhing

 

[Utard]

You realize JD is a lawyer right? Probably not the guy to be explaining legal process to...

sweet then he can tell me why I'm wrong

 

[dmski]

sweet then he can tell me why I'm wrong

This should be interesting...

 

[rememberscott]

You realize JD is a lawyer right? Probably not the guy to be explaining legal process to...

Everyone in this thread thinks they're a lawyer. And yaal don't know shit

 

[987321654hgfd]

My point is, read some of the guy's grand jury testimony.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

I mean, it sounds fair enough, if it's more or less true. In other words, if you believe what he says, he should not be indicted. And no one here is in a good position to assess his credibility. That's why we have people in the room listening to him tell his story.

On top of that most of the witnesses on Brown's side were giving completely false statements and changing their statements when physical evidence proved them wrong.

If you read Dorian Johnson's original account of the incident you'll see it's completely ridiculous.

 

[cool_name]

My point is, read some of the guy's grand jury testimony.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

I mean, it sounds fair enough, if it's more or less true. In other words, if you believe what he says, he should not be indicted. And no one here is in a good position to assess his credibility. That's why we have people in the room listening to him tell his story.

In other words, it seems like people just want to be angry about this but don't actually have a good reason to.

If you look at the autopsy report aswell, it lines up perfectly with his story

Nope, sorry, people have every right to be pissed, because this trial was an absolute mockery of the "justice" system. Do you know what a grand jury is? The prosecutor controls the entire process. Every person who gets to enter that courtroom has to be vetted by the prosecutor. The defense's attorney isn't even allowed to be there unless the prosecutor OKs it. Grand juries are by and large these days vestigial structures. The purpose of a grand jury trial is just to indict a person on charges. That means that the grand jury's duty is just to say, "Yeah, we think there's enough evidence on the prosecutor's side to move the case to trial." There is no reason Wilson should not have been indicted. Even though he probably would have been eventually acquitted, there is at least enough evidence to raise the question as to whether this was a justified use of force. The only time a prosecutor fails to procure an indictment is when he doesn't want an indictment. People are pissed because the so-called justice system isn't even trying.

Also, fun fact, did you know that in 2010 out of 162000 grand juries, grand juries declined to deliver an indictment in only 11 cases? That's 0.007% of the time.

A mockery of the justice system would be having him indicted for no resaon other then it is what typically happens.

Most cases a prosecutor won't press charges if there isn't enough evidence to move foreword, during this case it seems fairly obvious that the prosecutor was under public pressure to move foreword on it and because of that moved foreword without enough evidence, resulting him not getting indicted. To me that is the justice system working, there wasn't enough evidence so the guy doesn't get tried

 

[Scaredwhiteboy]

I worked in a police dept as a dispatcher and there were def some stand-up dudes there. There was also a few young cops who would mention how they couldn't wait for a thug to get out of line so they could fight em or taser them. It is a ego/alpha trait. One cop was even in some hot water for abuse to a criminal. I also have a NYPD buddy who is on a few youtube police brutality videos and his situation is not great either. I would embed the video but they will get your blood boiling. Whether you back the cop for getting physical or you back the people for getting pissed, the videos are hard to watch. My main point is some people do not mind when criminals get beat up on, or shot. However, our legal system is there to handle the penalties for the criminals. Being ok with cops abusing their power via violence is scary.

This is a troll, right? "I would link to the video, but it would help my argument too much"

 

[Scaredwhiteboy]

The only one of those that was a legitimate riot is Vancouver. Every other one is just hand-picking the most dramatic picture from the incident. Need I remind you that 12 buildings have been razed to ground in Ferguson already. How many buildings weren't burnt to the ground in Denver 2014?

 

[Utard]

If you look at the autopsy report aswell, it lines up perfectly with his story

A mockery of the justice system would be having him indicted for no resaon other then it is what typically happens.

Most cases a prosecutor won't press charges if there isn't enough evidence to move foreword, during this case it seems fairly obvious that the prosecutor was under public pressure to move foreword on it and because of that moved foreword without enough evidence, resulting him not getting indicted. To me that is the justice system working, there wasn't enough evidence so the guy doesn't get tried

Nope, it's a mockery of the justice system because Darren Wilson was allowed to give testimony before the grand jury which means that the prosecutor presented them with exculpatory evidence. That's not the function of a grand jury. It's an injustice because I guarantee you that this prosecutor doesn't do this and won't do this in the future for any of his black drug dealing, murder, robbery, assault, or sexual crime suspects. Justice is supposed to be blind. That means that the prosecutor should have done his duty regardless of how he personally felt about the details of the case. Darren Wilson and the Brown family deserved a fair trial, and instead what they got is a prosecutor who took the law into his own hands and heavily biased the system in favor of the cop, and that's fucked up.

 

[J.D.]

That means that the grand jury's duty is just to say, "Yeah, we think there's enough evidence on the prosecutor's side to move the case to trial." There is no reason Wilson should not have been indicted. Even though he probably would have been eventually acquitted, there is at least enough evidence to raise the question as to whether this was a justified use of force.

Is that actually the legal standard in Missouri? "Raise the question"? Because it doesn't seem like much of a standard to me. Isn't it "probable cause"? Seems to me that the result was abnormal because this wasn't a normal grand jury process - everything was extremely public and there was a lot of pressure to be as transparent as possible. Sounds like the prosecutor just aired out everything there was to see and put it in the hands of the grand jury.

I really think it's an epic waste of everyone's time just to get an indictment for the sake of it by influencing the process to procure that result. What's the point of that? You'd just get smashed at trial once the standard of proof goes up to BARD.

I dunno I haven't been following it closely and I don't practice criminal law, much less Missouri law, but I have a hard time seeing anything that was done improperly here. Quite the opposite; it looks like the process was done so as to be as squeaky-clean as possible, which you can understand given the massive light shining on everything to do with this.

 

[Utard]

Is that actually the legal standard in Missouri? "Raise the question"? Because it doesn't seem like much of a standard to me. Isn't it "probable cause"? Seems to me that the result was abnormal because this wasn't a normal grand jury process - everything was extremely public and there was a lot of pressure to be as transparent as possible. Sounds like the prosecutor just aired out everything there was to see and put it in the hands of the grand jury.

I really think it's an epic waste of everyone's time just to get an indictment for the sake of it by influencing the process to procure that result. What's the point of that? You'd just get smashed at trial once the standard of proof goes up to BARD.

I dunno I haven't been following it closely and I don't practice criminal law, much less Missouri law, but I have a hard time seeing anything that was done improperly here. Quite the opposite; it looks like the process was done so as to be as squeaky-clean as possible, which you can understand given the massive light shining on everything to do with this.

Do you think that for most of the other grand jury trials this prosecutor has been involved in he has allowed the defendant to testify or presented exculpatory evidence? I mean, it seems to me like the whole "squeaky-clean" method is just a front for the prosecutor to cover his ass and let the cop off. That's nice that he was legally allowed to do the things that he did, but if the law isn't applied equally in every case, that's an injustice. And if the evidence really is so strong on the cop's side, why would they be worried at all about just taking the case to trial so it at least looks like they're trying to be fair.

 

[plyswthsqrrls]

Do you think that for most of the other grand jury trials this prosecutor has been involved in he has allowed the defendant to testify or presented exculpatory evidence? I mean, it seems to me like the whole "squeaky-clean" method is just a front for the prosecutor to cover his ass and let the cop off. That's nice that he was legally allowed to do the things that he did, but if the law isn't applied equally in every case, that's an injustice. And if the evidence really is so strong on the cop's side, why would they be worried at all about just taking the case to trial so it at least looks like they're trying to be fair.

A trial for the sake of a trial would just be a waste of time and money

 

[Utard]

A trial for the sake of a trial would just be a waste of time and money

2 questions:

1) What do you think the purpose of a trial is?

2) What do you think costs more, a criminal trial or the damages that have been/will continue to be done by rioters and the extra security needed to contain them by police working extra shifts and needing new riot gear, lost income from businesses being destroyed or closed, the national guard being called out, etc.

 

[saskskier]

2 questions:

1) What do you think the purpose of a trial is?

2) What do you think costs more, a criminal trial or the damages that have been/will continue to be done by rioters and the extra security needed to contain them by police working extra shifts and needing new riot gear, lost income from businesses being destroyed or closed, the national guard being called out, etc.

You don't think the exact same thing would happen if it went to trial and he was found not guilty? Ferguson would still burn. Citizens want Wilson's head regardless of whether or not he did anything wrong.

 

[plyswthsqrrls]

2 questions:

1) What do you think the purpose of a trial is?

2) What do you think costs more, a criminal trial or the damages that have been/will continue to be done by rioters and the extra security needed to contain them by police working extra shifts and needing new riot gear, lost income from businesses being destroyed or closed, the national guard being called out, etc.

1) The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty

2) There would have been riots regardless of whether or not he was indicted. The rioters and the protestors are two different groups of people.