I
do not support rioting and looting but neither do I support a Grand
Jury system that denies representation for either the victim or the
accused but allows the prosecutor (the only lawyer in the room) to
present evidence to laymen jurors in a way to suggest either guilt or
innocence, as he chooses.
This was the case here with the prosecutor
acting as the defense for the officer rather than as an advocate for the
public interest which would be best served by a full trial to determine
guilt or innocence in a public forum. Maybe Wilson actually had to
shoot the unarmed teen twice in the head to render him no longer
dangerous (after hitting him what?, four more times?). I can't imagine
such a scenario but I would like to hear about it.
We've been in Mazatlan almost two weeks.
10 hours ago
Great topic for Thanksgiving Day in the States.
ReplyDeleteI would be very thankful for a justice system that protects the people it was designed to protect. This is how us atheists celebrate Thanksgiving. ;)
DeleteThe only mistake Wilson made was shooting the guy six times. Pretty sure that once would have been sufficient. And then none of this crap would have happened.
ReplyDeleteI am a big guy as well but shooting me once would have me on the ground crying like a baby. I would feel better if there was at least some evidence he was guilty of more than 'maybe' shoplifting.
DeleteVery good questions, Croft. I cannot understand multiple shots. One would think a bullet to the leg would be sufficient to immobilize an aggressor. Heat of the moment? Still difficult to rationalize so many gun shots.
ReplyDeleteA morning press conference could (without evidence) have stemmed the night time riots that led to chaos and destruction. Foolish, foolish, foolish!
Yes, wait until 7 or 8 at night when half the people have already bee drinking to announce what you know is an inflammatory decision. It is almost as if they wanted a riot.
DeleteI was taught in school that the police get 51% standing in court because, if it was 50/50, it would always be my word against the polices' word and how would the system convict anyone. That system has some drawbacks to say the least. We have to be honest with ourselves. We have a police department made up of 95% white people in a town that is made up of black people. There was no way the police in that police department were going to let one of their own stand trial for killing one of the locals in the line of duty, not with 51% standing in a court of law. And much of the blame has to go to the people of Ferguson for letting a 95% white police department be their law enforcement agent. Policy matters everywhere.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has had dealings with the police and the courts has seen for themselves how they work in concert against the accused. It was obvious from the start that it was very unlikely "they" were going to indite the cop and in order to accomplish this they had to switch the focus off the cop and onto the dead teen who then became the de facto "accused".
DeleteIt was unlikely because the evidence wasn't there to indict.
DeleteYou can think what you want, Don but you are wrong on this one. There was plenty of evidence to indite, to convict, we will not know until after the Feds get done with their investigation and a Federal jury gets to look at the shooting. It is in the Federal Civil Rights bailiwick-Mr. Wilson still has some answering to do and it will not be some cracker prosecutor making the state's case.
DeleteGrand Juries are slanted toward the procecution since they are the only ones presenting, so I believe they heard the worst possible case against the police. So if that premise is true, there must have been hardly any evidence to support actions of the young man who died and more evidence for the police..
ReplyDeleteOne bullet or 6, makes no difference. What would you have done??
In this case the prosecutor did not want to indite and presented his evidence to lead the jury in the direction he wanted,
DeleteIf he had stopped shooting after four shots, Mike Brown might still be alive. That is the difference.
Once again Croft (just like Martin) you are making statements that suggest you were actually there. Were you?
DeleteOnly two people were there Don and one of them is dead, The prosecutor was not there either.
DeleteIn his 24 years as a prosecutor, St. Louis County’s Robert McCulloch has never indicted a police officer involved in any shooting From the moment, McCulloch took over this case there was never a single doubt about what the outcome would be.
ReplyDeleteMcCulloch spent most of his press conference attacking the credibility of the witnesses while offering a stout defense for the actions of Officer Wilson.
Everything many people said about Bob McCulloch was absolutely true - he would not indict a police officer even for the cold-blooded killing of Mother Theresa!
Balderdash!
DeleteThe public supports hiring big guys and arming them with guns in order to protect. The fact that we are collectively surprised when these same people get heavy handed with their administering law is a bit oxymoron - ish. The lad was a BIG thug - this is pretty apparent from his demeanor caught on video in the package store.
ReplyDeleteThe song goes "Teach your children well". Any young man that challenges authority with a loaded gun is plain stupid in my book. You bang a guy up the side of the face, again with a gun in his hand, you are likely to get shot - even six times. Frankly I think we need the authority getting a little respect and teach our children to NOT be rude to authorities for fear of such perhaps heavy-handed results. This problem started with the youth's lack of concern for the law - that is the bottom line.
Well said...I totally agree.
DeleteI agree that kids must be brought up to respect (not fear) authority. However in cities like Ferguson where 95% of the population is black and 95% of the police are white and have a history of displaying an 'attitude' we unfortunately have a tinderbox of violence waiting to erupt. Armed police must learn the difference between "commanding' respect and 'demanding' respect. Police have also been taught that the use of deadly force is their last resort, specially against an unarmed individual.
ReplyDeleteMike Brown was indeed a big kid (I will not use the term 'thug' because of recent racial overtures applied to that word by some groups) but his size was a result of genetics and not upbringing or environment. He may have been (probably was) guilty of shoplifting and maybe of giving a threatening look to the shopkeeper as was shown on tape. Whatever happened after that is a matter of 'he said, he said' where only one of the people involved in the confrontation is still alive.
Mike Brown was unarmed and the cop had many tools at his disposal other that shooting him six times, four or five of those shots from a distance. Mike Brown deserved a trial and maybe thirty hours of community service, not six bullets.
I will be interested to see what the Federal Courts have to say about the situation and to see how the cop does in a situation where the prosecutor is not his cheering section.