Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting
Source: Washington Post
Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., according to law enforcement officials.
When racial tension boiled over in Ferguson after the Aug. 9 shooting, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. traveled to the St. Louis suburb to meet with city leaders and protest organizers in an effort to bring calm. He assured them that the federal government would open a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, but that investigation now seems unlikely to result in any charges.
“The evidence at this point does not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson,” said one person briefed on the investigation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
Justice Department officials are loath to acknowledge publicly that their case cannot now meet the high legal threshold for a successful civil rights prosecution. The timing is sensitive: Tensions are high in greater St. Louis as people await the results of a grand jury’s review of the case.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-civil-rights-charges-unlikely-against-police-officer-in-ferguson-shooting/2014/10/31/56189d80-6055-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)except all the eyewitness accounts.
Funny how a single eyewitness can put a black man on death row, but a half dozen eyewitnesses can't get a cop a single misdemeanor charge when he commits murder.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The DoJ would have to prove beyond reason doubt the Michael was shot BECAUSE OF his race. And, sadly, absent an eye witness to the cop yelling "Ni@@er", that would be difficult to prove.
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)officer did anything that warrants prosecution at the federal level rather its a state level case.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Except in specific situations, the applicable ones of which here are very hard to prove.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)It seems like things like this just quietly go away and leave everyone to make their own assumptions.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
BootinUp
(51,267 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there WILL be one hell of a Wrongful Death suit!
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... Has affected your reading comprehension.
I was talking about the federal investigation and how the results are usually 'leaked' just like this.
What Holder should do is go on national TV and say that there was no evidence found that Wilson violated Browns civil rights and there will be no prosecution.
Then lay out the results of the investigation...
Instead it's all drips and leaks and anonymous sources...
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)("this"
and unclear language ("things" in general do more to impede discourse than any rush on my part.
I'm referring, of course, to this little jewel of yours in your first post here:
Who know WTF you're talking about? I sure as hell don't. I doubt even you do until called on it.
I recommend you take (or re-take) Fundamentals of English Composition if the class is offered at a nearby community college.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)
Oktober
(1,488 posts)You must be tired...
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... if my post was not a direct response to the OP which was clearly discussing the federal investigation into a potential violation of Brown's civil rights and the seemingly unlikely chance of a prosecution attempt.
Double points for snarking ahead blindly when I reference the "same quote" (which was the only quote) which was also in direct reference to the federal investigation.
You know.. all of that...
Maybe you are just anti-pronoun....
Travelman
(708 posts)If the AG were to make such a pronouncement before the grand jury wraps up, I think anyone would be able to argue in court that such a statement would have an affect upon the grand jury itself.
After the grand jury, it's a different story, and I would agree with an airing-out of the evidence if there's no true bill.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)I suspect that there is a middle ground to make it more concrete and declarative, if only in reference to the civil rights/killed him because of his race, aspect.
In any case, it's death by a 1000 cuts now...
malthaussen
(18,560 posts)I prefer an indictment for 2nd degree murder (I'm being generous; besides 1st degree is also a hard rap to prove), but I don't expect our "justice" system to pull a 180.
-- Mal
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)diabeticman
(3,121 posts)the new Normal.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its CYA...
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Other than actual evidence and witness testimony?
Agalbraith
(52 posts)dont you know anything? The facts dont matter. Reasoning doesnt matter. All that matters is the hatred towards the police and white guilt.
geez.... testimony, facts... pfffft... what do you think this is? some sort of legal proceeding? Heck no buddy. The police officer has already been convicted in the court of public opinion and the only thing that will do is for him to go to jail for murder. Nevermind the facts. The only reason he shot in the first place was to kill a black person. /sarcasm.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)It's clearly produced too much carbon dioxide out of your pie hole.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)That poster is not far from the mark.
In this thread we have had people say blacks can't be racist, we have people saying that evidence doesn't matter Wilson is an executioner, and we have people saying that if the Grand Jury does not indict, it is only because of racism. These are not well thought out opinions or rational lines of thought. To some, the facts will not matter.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Choose from the multitude of sources, internet, newspaper and television and you will see why such jaded and pesimistic comments ensue.
BTW, people on the whole are not saying blacks can't be racist. They DO say that racism is far from over in America. Do you agree with that last one or not? Do you agree that there is something wrong with the way this policeman handled that young man?
I sure do, and that doesn't augment how I would expect the criminal justice system to operate in this day and age.
You can't start a thread here and not expect that it would be HIGHLY opinionated, which has nothing to do with a person's ability to understand how the justice system should work for all Americans.
BTW, I'm white and female.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I guess that's all evidence? This makes an argument for what people of DU think? 
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
Most of us just want to see a trial. I have no doubt he will get off, he's a cop.
But a public trial for once would be refreshing as opposed to a bullshit 'internal' investigation.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... Then it would be an ethical failing to take him to court just to soothe public opinion.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)There is no way that if a non-cop had gunned someone down in the street, there wouldn't be a trial.
But because it's a fucking cop, somehow there needs to be a mountain of evidence just to bring him to trial.
Really? What you don't seem to get is that this happens all the time, and cops walk. They are rarely indicted and even when they are found guilty, they walk with a slap on the wrist and resume their lives.
Meanwhile the rest of us, especially black people, get hammered by a system that is set up to steal our shit and enslave us to predatory corporations.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... and it was determined, through evidence and the GJ process, that the shooter acted in good faith and no trial is warranted.
It's to our benefit nowadays that we have access to all of the forensic and video evidence as opposed to the past where it was mostly eyewitness and the bare minimum of forensic.
You appear to be intentionally missing my point.
There is no equality in how cases are handled between 'civilians' and cops.
Just as there is no equality between white 'civilians' and black 'civilians' in the justice system.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)for truth. It's dying virtue in this country concerning race and many state sanctioned executioners...."intentionally missing point"? Definitely.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
Gemini Cat
(2,820 posts)They refuse to get it.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)are you talking about? What "evidence" are you referring to?
Agalbraith
(52 posts)nevermind those. Never mind the facts and evidence that the feds have heard that are, according to the leaks, leading them to say there was no civil rights violation.
we, the public, havent heard those facts and evidence. All we have to go by is what has been leaked, which we cant tell is accurate or not. The only real statements we have are from the families autopsy and the official autopsy and some statements made by the person that was with Michael Brown, which arent supported by the families autopsy, or in the case of the statement that the officer dragged Brown through the police SUV window, supported by reason or possibility.
but that hasnt stopped some from coming to the conclusion that the officer is guilty no matter what and that "justice" is only served by him going to jail for murder, even if it turns out that he was completely justified in shooting.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)murder charges. I believe. Yeah all of you can rationalize away murder of unarmed black children with pretty summations, accounts of the 'truth' as you see it and obfuscation. The area is racist, Ferguson is racist, the police are racist, therefore, the grand jury is racist. No stretch of imagination needed. All of you will believe what you may, no skin off my nose just confirmation of .......................
I'm sure many will sleep better at night when wilson is vindicated by a grand jury of his peers and allowed with his weapon back out on the streets to protect ..... life and property.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)... but those that have convicted the officer in their minds in absence of any real evidence have done so on both accounts.
like you have. Congrats.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and you have found him not guilty.....and the tripe about evidence blah, blah, blah....meh
branford
(4,462 posts)That allegation is absurd. However, since all evidence has not yet been released, anyone who is remotely objective has no real basis to actually and affirmatively find him guilty.
It is you who have already determined Wilson's guilt, and are offended that anyone would have the audacity to question your judgment. Luckily, all defendants in the USA, regardless of race, and including white police officers, have constitutional protections, and you are most certainly not anyone's judge and jury.
Welcome to the presumption of innocence that underlies all western legal systems. Ironically, without it, minority youth would fare far worse in our criminal justice system.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)have constitutional protections other have them on paper, that's all. "regardless of race"...right. White police have the rights to kill and murder indiscriminately and most walk. Minority youth have it pretty damn bad already in our so called fair and balanced justice system. That's why the prisons are overflowing with black males put in prison for charges that whites get a slap on the wrist for. Please. You're still blowing smoke. The rights to fair and balanced justice is not applied in this country equally and you should know that. But maybe not because you don't want to. Wilson is a state sanctioned executioner. Period. Like I said counselor, I rest my case, you win.
And I don't care if people disagree with my judgement one whit, especially you. I am just not going to roll over because of your experience in law. Means nothing to me. Wilson is a murderer.
branford
(4,462 posts)although I'm at a loss to how you made such a determination without reviewing all the evidence. In a criminal context, one is responsible solely for their own actions. Wilson cannot be convicted of murder because of societal racism alone.
In any event, it's not you opinion I find the most troubling, but that you apparently believe it sufficient for a criminal conviction.
Do you not believe Wilson (or anyone) is entitled to the presumption of innocence, a impartial jury, and that the government should have to prove to such a jury all the elements of any charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and only with admissible evidence?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)entitled to my opinion about the executioner wilson. He's not society. He is an individual racist that society will sanction to murder again. He's guilty until proven innocent, same standard used for the poor, minority and blacks in amerika's system of 'impartial' justice. He will be found innocent.....guaranteed.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)is that really how you view the world? People are guilty until innocent? I hope you are never on jury duty, it would be very unfair to everyone involved.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)same standard applied to the majority of blacks tied up in a biased, partial (towards the people of the privileged class) justice system. What? I'm wrong?
Agalbraith
(52 posts)I dont know if he is guilty or not. I have heard very little evidence.
what I have heard is the autopsy results from both the family that do not support public statements made by Brown's companion. Thats it.
That is not enough for me to form an opinion on the case overall.
branford
(4,462 posts)A federal civil rights charge would be much more difficult to prove than simple murder, a basic fact which you seem to refuse to accept.
In any federal trial, the government would not only essentially need to prove the underlying murder, but also that it was done willfully to deprive Brown of his civil rights. The higher standard and evidentiary difficulties of this latter component has been explained by myself and others on numerous occasions.
General claims that everyone everywhere is racist is not only ridiculous, it in no way substitutes for actual evidence. You cannot convict Wilson of murder or any other crime because racism exists, or is even pervasive, in Ferguson, St. Louis or anywhere else. Wilson is presumed innocent, and in any trial, the government will need to that Wilson actually and specifically committed each and every element of any offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt with admissible evidence, and the government's claims will be carefully and zealously tested by defense counsel.
Moreover, among those involved in this matter are a number of African-Americans. If the AA grand jurors do not vote to indict, are they racist? Are any AA witness who allegedly support Wilson's account racist? Is AG Eric Holder, no less President Obama, racist if they believe insufficient evidence exists to procure a conviction against Wilson? Are any AA FBI agents or other experts who examine evidence and then potentially support Wilson's story racist? Additionally, is forensic evidence like autopsies, GSR and blood tests, racist?
Despite the cognitive dissonance it may cause, you need to accept that individuals, regardless of race, that do not view the incident through your exact personal lens, are not all racists or protecting the police, and that your preconceived notions and personal judgment does not substitute for actual evidence.
You can believe that Wilson committed murder, and you may very well be right. Nevertheless, for a conviction, the charge must be proved it court. There is no "everyone is racist" exception to a criminal defendant's constitutional protections.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)that everyone is a racist". Gee obfuscation again. Never said that. Mr. lawyer, you know all about this case, so okay. I also know that someone like you would NEVER be able to see what I see in amerikkka everyday. Yeah and the court WILL let this POS wilson go. Proof or no proof. It's nothing but BS what you wrote. Legalese BS , but BS. I'm tired of it. Good day to you.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)heaven05 - "general claims that everyone is a racist". Gee obfuscation again. Never said that. "
heaven05 - "The area is racist, Ferguson is racist, the police are racist, therefore, the grand jury is racist."
you do know that we can see exactly what you said right? Claiming you never said it doesnt go too far when its painfully obvious that you did.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)statement regarding ferguson, the area, the police of ferguson and not a big stretch to say I suspect so are the majority members of the GRAND JURY. No ferguson resident has shown any compassion toward this murder victim that I have found. Not in any numbers that would be recognizable. I'm saying, get it straight now and quit twisting and squirming with my words, NOT EVERY AMERICAN IS RACIST who happen to be of the caucasian persuasion....you are NOT slick at all.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)heaven05 - "The area is racist, Ferguson is racist, the police are racist, therefore, the grand jury is racist."
So its just everyone involved in the case is racist... not EVERY american?
you tap dance well.
so are the black people involved in the Fergeson case racist too? or is it JUST the white folks involved in the case?
I mean, you said "Ferguson is racist" and Ferguson is mostly black (64%), are they racist as well?
and we are also back to you having made up your mind that it was indeed "murder", but yet you have none of the evidence to reach that conclusion. Again, congrats for not being biased at all... oh wait... thats not what that means.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and when you quit slithering around my words and know just because ferguson has a lot of black people does not mean that they are in charge of this investigation, have police that represent their community or are at the administration and justice meting level of that town. HEY!!! LISTEN UP! That has been proven.. I keep trying to teach, but it's getting boring with you. Never learned how to tap dance, you? Yes as far as I am concerned, get it straight now...geez.....this shooting was a murder by a racist person hiding behind a badge and gun. Clear? I hope so. YES Ferguson's white population has a god awful amount of racists. Clear? I hope so.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)you said "Fergeson is racist". Does your assessment only apply to the white population? Or does it apply to the black population as well?
simple question. 2nd time its been asked.
Does your assessment of everyone involved in the investigation being racist only apply the white folks involved?
simple question. 2nd time its been asked.
you've said that Ferguson's white population has a god awful amount of racists. That is indeed clear. I've asked, several times now, if in your esteemed estimation, that generalization applies to Ferguson's black population as well. OR if you think its ONLY the white folks that are racist. Simple, simple question.
and again... thank you for tripling down on you reaching the conclusion that event was murder without having heard any of the evidence in the case. Reaching a conclusion without knowing the facts is a smart thing to do. Really, it is. No really, its what all the best and brightest do. Nevermind the facts, just jump to a conclusion. Thats the way to do it. *Slow Clap*.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)go from there. SIMPLE. Wilson will walk whether I believe or hundreds of thousands of others believe that he is a murderer. Will not make a difference.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)"black people can't be racist" --- so it is genetic trait that doesnt allow black people to pre-judge people of other races or think ill of people of other races? I'm honestly curious.
thanks for saying that though... now, combined with your statements in another thread of "no matter what you say I wont change my mind"... I can now relegate your posts to the "pay no mind" pile.
heaven05
(18,124 posts) AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)beat up a toddler.....I can't believe this guy is still digging the hole.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)because I'd really like to think that people out there are smarter than the way he presents himself. No one can honestly be so stupid as to believe that "black people cant be racist"... I mean that is soooooo stupid is HAS to be fake.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and the troll comment and I just realized you called me stupid, I'll let pass. I don't alert. BLACK PEOPLE CANNOT be racist. Period. By the way your immaturity and frustration with the truth and your superior is showing.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)saying black people cant be racist is STUUUUUUUUPID. Dumb. Ignorant. Ill informed. Idiotic.
Here is a tip. Racism is thought. Racism is looking down on a person of a different race. ANYONE, no matter what their race, ethnic background, country of origin... is capable of having any thought. That means that ANYONE is capable of being racist.
that is what leads me to the conclusion that you are a troll.
Im not frustrated or immature at all. I jsut call out really stupid statements when I see them. I dont know how anyone could HONESTLY think that black people arent capable of the range of thoughts that other races are, so the statement has to be some form of internet trolling.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)I am stupid according to you which carries about as much weight as a gnat. Don't overestimate your impact, it is negligible. You can come to any conclusion you please, I have run into this type of frustration and deep immaturity before. You are a lightweight. Black people CANNOT be racist. Grow up and study some more, then come back and try to converse in a lucid manner. Black people CANNOT be racist, take that tip. 134 posts? meh. Not ready yet.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)is this due to some lack of mental capacity for thought?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)with disaster.
heaven05
(18,124 posts) Agalbraith
(52 posts)you are the one digging the whole.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Agalbraith
(52 posts)if you dare... which you wont. Trolls hate anything definite and concrete.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)prepared to be able to provide anything that could be deemed helpful, lucid, mature or otherwise. Like I said return when you have a few more arrows in your quiver. As far as your buddy, like you, lightweight. I'm done with both of you. I just cant, in good conscience, waste anymore time on your frustration and immaturity. bye bye not been a pleasure.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)just make more of a fool of yourself for our enjoyment.
what makes you think black people cant be racist?
is it a lack of mental capacity to have thoughts that other races are capable of?
is it something genetic?
Are their other races that lack the capacity to have racist thoughts as well or is this something particular to black people?
is is only AMERICAN black people? or any black person anywhere in the world?
at what percentage of mixed race background does the capacity to be racist start to appear? 1/2 black? 1/4? 1/32?
here is your chance. Educate us ALL on the basis for your theory.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Where on earth did you ever get the idea that black people can't be racist?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and having to deal, still in 2014, with a certain hateful segment of this society's population I ignore your baiting. Look you "black people are just as racist" crowd can stick to your flawed understanding(s), your right. You can't sway, shame, denigrate me enough to EVER make me back off the truth of racism and certain hateful groups that reside in american caucasian culture and how that racist hate, from racist groups, systems and institutions, is APPLIED to ALL minorities of color..... Period. Good bye. Done with you.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)It's a binary question... Either yes they can or no they can't... No qualifiers...
heaven05
(18,124 posts)absolute yes they can be or no they can't be. Not binary and simplistic as some would like. Given this multi-racial-cultural society only someone who looked at the world simplistically could expect such an absolute conclusion. Just not possible to answer simplistically.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Some things really are simple and an extremely convenient mass exemption to one of the most common failings of mankind (racism) is egregiously arrogant.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)a person of color lives in america, no arrogance, just experience with "one of the most common failings of humankind(mankind)".. Racism is the only mass race specific action designed to continuously hurt, limit, kill a certain segment of american society, a complete sub culture if you will. And it ain't people of color who created the original design. So make all of the simple deductions you please, the truth of racism cannot be denied and neither can the perpetrators. Give you hint they aren't people of color unless you want to throw allen west or c.thomas, et al in that bunch as enablers. They are charlatans and people with a skewed moral sense of the truth, I think. That segment of a certain sub-culture has made their own choice, let them deal with the fleas.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... but whomever you deem worthy that can or cannot fall into the appropriate category.
Height of convenience...
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)but you are sadly mistaken in your assumption that racism only comes from one group. I frankly can't understand how anyone could ever come to that conclusion.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)may give you a small idea of where I'm coming from.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)There is absolutely nothing in it to support your claim.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)since I only have my experience to draw on, that's all the support I can substantiate my claim with. That's all that counts with me. You think what you must. Believe what you may. Diminish my personal experience if you will, can't worry about that.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You have your experience, and I have mine.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If you go by the definition that racism is not simply racial prejudice but prejudice combined with the systemic ability to act on it with impunity.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)when we see time and again that it doesn't not, for the reasons you state so well. i am so happy Micheal Brown's mother is going to the UN. no justice possible in this country.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)under the authority of President Obama, both African-Americans. They will have access to the same witnesses and evidence, simultaneously collected and reviewed by the FBI, and the feds even performed their own, third autopsy. If no federal civil rights are filed due to lack of evidence, are AG Holder and President Obama racists?
You've already convicted Wilson in your mind, and dismissed all evidence, no less a trial, as irrelevant if it does not agree with your determination of guilt and other preconceived notions. You certainly don't want to engage in a discussion, you want a cheering section for your mob. I care not at all if you're tired of people disagreeing with you. Get over it. People of good faith and character, here on DU and elsewhere, who are certainly not racists, will see this case (and the long-standing requirements of the legal system) differently than you. If you don't want or expect to be challenged, I'm curious why you would post on a internet forum.
Loudly proclaiming we live "Amerikka," or believing that you have some special, unique insight into this case or racism in America, is not only puerile and arrogant, it's immaterial to procuring a conviction, state or federal. A conviction requires a great deal of evidence about the specific incident, not just purported knowledge of racism in Ferguson or hatred of police.
If Wilson is guilty of murder, I sincerely hope that there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. Since the majority of evidence, both forensic and witnessed, has not been released, no one, including you or I, know the strength of any potential case against Wilson or can evaluate if a trial is even warranted. There are well established procedural and ethical rules that must be followed, and demands by the mob should never be considered.
I proclaim that amerikkkan culture is racist, systemically and institutionally. I do have my insight and experience in many different situations in my 66 years in this country as proof that I have insight. Hell I know my experience will not sway the grand jury with their proof(s) or make a difference. You're blowing smoke. Wilson is guilty of murder. period. I do not care if your legalese can twist, squirm and slither around that fact. Which it has continuously. You're entitled. Murder is murder. Wilson murdered Michael Brown. He will never be found guilt of that because the 'evidence' won't bear that fact out, guaranteed. I know it already, Okay. You win.
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm not trying to "win" a discussion on an internet forum. I simply want to see all the evidence before making any judgments. Why you you object?
If Wilson actually murdered Brown, I sincerely hope that there is sufficient and clear evidence available to secure a conviction. Similarly, if a crime was not committed or it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Wilson should go free. Wilson cannot and should not, however, be convicted as a some sort of symbol of racism, in Ferguson or anywhere else.
I also do not understand you criticisms of my "legalese." All I've stated are some of the most basic and intrinsic protections in our Constitution, all of which actually protect minorities in the legal system, and which we all learn about as early as grade school.
What exactly do you object to: The presumption of innocence? That the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Grand juries? Due process? Federalism?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)
to the partial and biased applications of the law when it comes to the different races and economic classes in this country. A black person, by and large is guilty until proven innocent. A 'privileged' person get's the much vaunted 'presumption of innocence'. Smoke. Wilson is a murderer. Period.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)n/t
Racism does exist, but there is only one legal standard in this country.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)don't get out much huh? BS on the one legal standard, especially in these times.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)documents that demarcate where the two legal standards diverge?
thanks.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)two applications. Period. I don't have to show you anything, codified or otherwise. It's fact from living black in the systemically and institutionalized racism of amerikkka. Period. Don't get out much either. I am through playing with you two. I'm bored and tired of wasting any more time with you and your buddy. Starting to call me stupid and a troll. I've called no one any thing outside of their person. Frustration with superiors always leads to name calling. I am offended. No black people cannot be racist. good day to you and your buddy.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and still remains true. funny how so many americans seem ignorant about it. but then again, they have the privilege to remain ignorant. it both makes them tout the colorblindness of the law, and completely ignore how its application has NEVER been colorblind. that's quite a feat!
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and has been since this country's inception. actually...it used to be codified in law, and the law changed. but the practice has not changed.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)big time!!!!
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)with no legal documents to support your assertion.....Exactly what I thought.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)perhaps you need to educate on that research before you make a fool of yourself again.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)If you aren't going to even entertain a legal standard...
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts) are you talking about? you and your allies IGNORE the standard of police routinely getting away with the murder of people of color. you ignore the fact that they do not get arrested or tried or convicted. how can you have a conversation with people who ignore the the underlying problem? THIS is what the riots are all about.
THIS is what every single riot in AA communities HAS ALWAYS been about. do you think any of the families of the victims give a FUCK about the legal standards of a society that HAVE NEVER even considered them human, let alone citizens? they want justice, and at least Micheal Brown's knows she has to go to the UN to get even a semblance of it.
does your legal standard mean when it almost ALWAYS screws the victims of police violence, if they are black?AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)
Seriously.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)even with strong evidence. rarely.
branford
(4,462 posts)and you'll find numerous news stories of officers found guilty of crimes ranging from minor infractions to murder and rape.
The amount of press coverage of any particular incident is not always indicative of actual trends.
Moreover, what's your solution to the alleged problem of juries finding many police officers to be more credible than their accusers.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)police officer guilty of swiping carmel corn
" " " " " pop corn
" " " " " soliciting sex
" " " " " playing a role in defrauding social security
" " pleads guilty to federal corruption charges and on and on. You post where those type of charges are not common place.
And that is just part of the first page of charges mentioned above, not one civil rights charge or conviction for a Rodney King type beating or Michael Brown type murder. Just numbers says some police officer has killed or beaten without mercy an unarmed black male usually but not exclusively. Stories abound of merciless beatings by racist police officers, yet when I used the duck duck go search engine and asked for "police officer guilty of" and there is NOTHING about the murders and beatings that black and poor people suffer, unless it's a white Iraqi veteran or something like that that is immediately jumped on by the press. It's ALL about sex solicitation, corruption involving drugs and money, different scams. Very indicative of police priorities when charging for crimes committed by police officers. Trends? As stated by you, more BS obfuscation.
You're not doing well with the muddle you are working at creating, or you knew all the time and just deflecting the truth that one degree that shifts focus from the real problem. Disingenuous. Not something that rates you very high in my book. But then you probably don't worry about being rated high in anything or any ones respect quotient, you're a lawyer.
branford
(4,462 posts)The earlier poster indicated that police officers were never convicted, despite strong evidence. Such an allegation is ludicrous.
You also keep on defining your own terms. For instance, just because you believe or say Michael Brown was murdered, does not make it so. You've already admitted that you've made-up your mind and you have no need or desire to review all the evidence about the incident. However, if the officer followed procedure, Wilson committed a homicide, but it certainly would not be considered murder under the law. I and many others will await the release of all the evidence before opining on someone's guilt.
I'm also perplexed about your citation to Rodney King. The federal government actually brought civil rights charges, and procured two convictions.
Additionally, you indicated in other posts in this thread that minorities cannot be racist. At the very least, would you therefore kindly explain the 22% of bias crime victims who were targeted because they were white (as of 2012, the most recent year for FBI hate crime statistics)?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/victims_final
heaven05
(18,124 posts)I've got your number. meh......Black people CANNOT be racist. Period. You would never be able to appreciate that fact and I truthfully don't care if you do. Tired of your obvious and transparent games with hiding behind laws designed and applied fairly ONLY to the ..... privileged of this society. I had fun for a while with your BS, but it's old and very, very stale now. You have a good one...your 22% bullshit is just that, the crimes may be biased maybe, racist no...... you should really quit, you impress no one but yourself and your sycophants on here...count me out of that......I am finished with you today. Like I said tired and bored. Maybe I'll play with your mind later, but I doubt it.
branford
(4,462 posts)and that's not racism? President Obama, Eric Holder and the FBI would most definitely beg to differ (unless statistics are now racist . . . ).
Blacks, like whites, Asians, Latinos, Indians, and every other human group, have racists in their midst. Unless you're alleging that blacks are biologically different, the very essence of racism, they have all the foibles and fallibility of everyone else. The fact that whites were able to get away with racist policies more often as the dominant power, does not excuse anyone else judging others because of the color of their skin.
I would note that not every instance of racism is between whites and minorities. The FBI bias crime statistics, and thousands of pages of civil decisions in areas such as employment law and public accommodations, easily and readily demonstrate that minorities, including blacks, are eminently capable of racism and discrimination against one another.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 09:28 AM - Edit history (2)
that people have to the education available on line now, anyone can claim they are anything they choose to be. You don't think a person who is aware of the racist nature of this culture, that is systemic and institutionalized, is not aware of the applications of that systemic and institutionalized racial hate? What planet did you just arrive from.......people who are the recipient of that systemic and institutionalized white racism can see the jack booted white thugs, my point, on the march against losing their white demographic superiority in this country. That fear is palatable and Obama's election focused that white racist fear most alarmingly. And as an addendum to that fact of white jackbooted racist thugs, it's a worldwide march, small so far, but fear(s) are causing the 'parade' to grow. Just look at all the 'open carry' idiots parading in this country, a majority of whom are fearful whites mr. counselor.
Black people in america CANNOT be racist. No amount of honey covered deflection will change that fact. You know why, mr. counselor or you should. I do think it is the former. Blacks have intraracial hate like any other race or culture but cannot be racist. That fact is evidenced by the likes of a c. thomas or an allen west...they are not racist just hateful and willfully blind toward the the historical facts surrounding their lives and their positions in predominantly white male bastions. I suspect that they are just self hating people with a political or judicial agenda to prove that self hate to keep their positions. Hell, s. africa in the heyday of aparthate(heid) had black police officers patrolling the townships(concentration camps)and applying the white authorities will and hate on their own people. Has been the case down through history with all who try to keep their position at the expense of others just like them.
Your race has a god awful amount of that just because of your population numbers and history. What was done to the Irish earlier in the last century is one small example. That was bigoted and discriminatory action against the Irish, but not racism. Black people can be very hard on one another. I won't go into the historical, psycho-sexual reasons for most of THAT self hate. If you are as smart as you purport to be, you know where it came from, mr. counselor. Blacks can be bigoted and discriminatory if the occasion arises, no doubt. That's it mr. counselor. Your squirming and slithering with words and FBI statistics does not change FACTS. Black people can be bigoted and yet it is fact that white people are able to apply systemic and institutionalized racist hate at will and any white person can avail themselves to the tools necessary to apply that racist hate, AT ANY TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING and black people cannot. You are a real piece of work mr. counselor and I think you probably win a lot of cases with your ability to deflect and obfuscate the truth of probably any matter.
Yet you must realize this, not everyone is overawed with your ability to try to make sour sweet and the truth a lie or suspect. You have a good day. My patience with you and your type of rationalization(s) from a person with privilege who can take advantage of those inequities that are heaped upon others of color is at an end for today.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's prejudiced, but many define racism to be a combination of prejudice and a systemic power difference that makes it possible to act on that prejudice with impunity.
branford
(4,462 posts)that is commonly understood by virtually everyone.
rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
: the belief that some races of people are better than others
Attempting to "nuance" violent or discriminatory racial prejudice as not actually racism because the offender isn't white is completely disingenuous.
All racial groups, including whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, and everyone else, have their racists, and it's not limited by geography or history, and whites need not be involved. Simply because whites may have historically benefited from racism more often than other groups, does not make the racism of others any more acceptable or excusable.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Admittedly this board may not be one of those, but the poster making the claim isn't just pulling it out of nowhere; it's a well-understood and highly cited definition of racism as participation in a system of racial privilege rather than an attitude. Frankly it's why half of the time someone calls someone else racist the two are talking past one another (and a reason I personally try to figure out another word to use). I just don't think the claim that "no black person can be racist" should be met with as much shock as it seemed to get here; the systemic model of racism is very well-known and rather highly regarded for the most part.
Unlike ethnicity, "race" is a legal and political concept to begin with, so it shouldn't be surprising that racism is a legal and political rather than emotional or cognitive state.
Agalbraith
(52 posts)civilian complaint review boards uphold about 11.9% of all complaints against the police (of the departments that have civilian complaint review boards). Now considering how easy it is for ANYONE at any time to claim "police brutality"... they didnt like how the police threw them to the ground after the ran from the murder scene... on and on... thats pretty steep
http://web.archive.org/web/20070812023457/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ccpuf.txt
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)by police that have not produced the results you claim. i didn't think i had to qualify that. this is true even in cases where the municipalities were sued and paid the victims. you and your friend can keep denying reality until the cows come home. however, there is a different standard in the justice system for police, and a different standard for police who beat and harass people of color. one exception: poor whites get similar treatment.
Response to noiretextatique (Reply #208)
Name removed Message auto-removed
heaven05
(18,124 posts)trying to appear naive and 'shocked that racism in the justice system is partial to the privileged and applied in a racist manner to the non privileged. They do try to appear to be something other than they are. I have dealt with two, this one is included. They DO NOT respect truth. They will become offensive and start name calling when presented with anything close to the truth about racism being a one way super highway designed to enhance the privilege of a certain racial segment of this society. Meaningless exercise. I do agree about the poor white being treated with disrespect by their racial peers.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)they claim to be objective, while they advocate a position. they support the status quo, but are clever enough to tiptoe around it enough to remain here 
they show up in every police related thread, and claim they are objective, but no one else is 
branford
(4,462 posts)Your question was, "when are police ever indicted, let alone convicted." The answer, which is very easy to ascertain, is quite often. Police are not as sympathetic as defendants as many here incorrectly believe.
You now appear to change your over-broad premise to just objection to the lack of convictions in some unknown and unidentified beatings and murders of African-Americans. I would be happy to discuss any particular case where you feel the jury rejected what you categorize as "strong evidence" of the guilt of a police officer. Depending on the specific incident, we might very well be in complete agreement. Juries are certainly not infallible, and I do not always agree with all verdicts. Would you kindly identify these alleged miscarriages of justice for purposes of discussion?
I would note, however, that citations to how certain parties may have prevailed in a civil suit are not particularly informative or helpful. The standard of proof required in a civil action, "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e., more likely than not), is nowhere near the "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard necessary for any criminal conviction. "Strong evidence" in a civil trial could be wholly insufficient to prove guilt in a criminal context.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)is just hiding behind the law, not addressing the racism problem, inherent in law(s) that are partial only to the ..... privileged of this society, at all. Wow. You're not as slick as you think you are. You write all this BS to NOT address the real problems. Just like most cops hiding behind their badge when accused of racism, which more than likely is true, you hide behind the law with the same motive to deflect the reality of racism in law and this society..
branford
(4,462 posts)What does that even mean? If "hiding behind the law" means that I require actual evidence of guilt of a recognized crime, demand due process, hold individuals responsible for their own actions, do not judge anyone by the color of their skin, white, black or otherwise, etc., then I'll continue to proudly "hide behind the law."
Moreover, what laws do you have a problem with, exactly? What laws are allegedly inherently racist?
You've claimed minorities can't be racist. Is race also now an absolute defense to some crimes?
If you are going to allege that a police officer committed a crime, you need to provide evidence, and if the crime purportedly had a racist motivation, you need proof of that as well. You are free to declare every cop guilty and every white a racist, but don't be surprised if you're ignored or disparaged.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)when it comes to murdering black people. that includes entire communities, states, police departments, and DAs. first: committing the crime. then...refusal to arrest, refusal to indict, jury nullification, etc. that's why the feds had to step in to convict the murderers of medgar evers, and other murderers in the south...which only took 40+ years. THAT is still happening.
branford
(4,462 posts)federal civil rights charges against Wilson, or Zimmerman, or anyone else?
Just because you insist something is murder, doesn't make it so. Moreover, even if it is (and it may appear to be the case after all evidence is released in the Brown shooting), you still need sufficient evidence to actually prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proclaiming everyone is racist is not a substitute for evidence, due process or the presumption of innocence.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)geez
clueless, willfully clueless.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I'm glad that we are a country of laws, and I hope we never give in to the mob mentality that some seem to want. Remember - the mob can just as easily turn on the people who cheer it on.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)has lynched and murdered for generations in this country. That 'mob' has always had free reign in america. You discount that 'mob' though, right? Laws didn't help those black people swinging in the breeze and 'due process' has not helped a host of black males in recent police shootings of unarmed people. This 'selective response' activity is really transparent and obvious. I have had a lot of chuckles and so have my buds. I have shared this weekend of hilarious duplicity written by a few here with many and the derisive laughter gained was a prize for me.
I even had one mention something about.....david duke.....out of respect for you and the fact that you are a democrat....I won't comment on what was said. But thanks for the laughs you and your sycophants have provided me.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Really? If I'd known I would have had one of them fix dinner tonight instead of fixing it myself.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)would you think constitutes "actual evidence and witness testimony" by this local grand jury?
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)If the forensics supports the police account, then no way they would ever get a conviction.
7962
(11,841 posts)The prosecution went for attempted murder and it was hard to prove that if 15 cops were trying to kill King, how in the world was he NOT dead? There was a long list of charges that I believe would've stuck.
It was similar to the Zimmerman trial. I believe that jury would have found him guilty of lesser charges, but had a hard time with murder because of his injuries and witness testimony
All IMO, of course
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)And, people need to be anonymous because… this case is "sensitive", is it?
I don't buy the adage that it's hard to make cases like this stick. That's because it will inevitably cause more harm. It just will not hold. It's just going to get worse and worse, and they may as well hear from us now.
I just wrote the AG's office over there in Cluelessville, D.C.
branford
(4,462 posts)In any prosecution, state or federal, the government bears the burden of proving each element of an alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt with admissible evidence. Even if you "know" a defendant is guilty, it still must be proven in a court of law. The fact that a community will be disappointed in a lack of prosecution or acquittal, no less threatens violence, is entirely immaterial and does not constitute evidence.
If, as has been reported in recent articles, the forensic evidence and ample witnesses, including African-Americans, support the officer's account as presented in his grand jury testimony, a successful prosecution for murder or the demonstrably more difficult civil rights charges, appears to be impossible.
We only have available a partial and incomplete knowledge of the relevant evidence and testimony. I am eager to review the grand jury transcripts once they are released, and get a full and better sense of what actually occurred between Brown and Wilson.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)recent articles have reported that ample witnesses support the officer's account?
I guess if they did, you'd be right. I just wonder what constitutes ample witnesses?
branford
(4,462 posts)Witness testimony, regardless of whether it is for the prosecution or defense, tends to be very unreliable. If the witnesses against Wilson are not consistent with the forensics, and more importantly, the testimony of witnesses for Wilson is supported by the forensics, it might actually be bad faith on the part of the prosecutor to even go to trial. The state's burdens and responsibility go far beyond prevailing against the defendant, while defense counsel's only obligation is to his or her client.
A civil rights prosecution requires that the government not only essentially prove the underlying crime, but that it was done in willfully to deprive Brown of his civil rights. This is a MUCH higher standard. Even if Wilson unreasonably believed he was defending himself, it would not meet the "willful" requirement. The prosecution witnesses would need to be able to testify not only about the shooting, but about the ancillary interactions between Brown and Wilson, such as racial remarks and similar activity. Since many of the apparently strongest and best witnesses have spoken to the press, and none have indicated such knowledge, it's possible no such witnesses even exist.
As I mentioned, there's likely a great deal of witnesses testimony and other evidence that we know absolutely nothing about. I understand and share the anger and disappointment of those who fight against racial disparities in the criminal justice system, but any prosecution of Wilson still requires a great deal of admissible evidence to justify a trial and support a conviction.
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)guilty but sadly its clear some of them made up their minds on the guilt of the officer long ago.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)the underlying crime, but that it was done in willfully to deprive Brown of his civil rights. This is a MUCH higher standard."
I'm just putting on the subject line that which you wrote, branford, which is so true.
I hope people read your entire post. The civil rights violation is incredibly difficult to prove, and that's why there are so few successful cases.
You are so right that there is likely testimony and evidence that we in the public know nothing about. The only evidence that we absolutely know about are those witnesses who cared to speak to the media, and that rarely encompassed all witness evidence and includes no forensic evidence.
Thanks, again, branford!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)…and, that is what you have said first about witness testimony… that it tends to be very unreliable.
I mean, how much historical data backs that up? Specifically, how long a time where witness testimony observed in the first person is accompanied by a recording device? I might agree with you when you say that it tends to be unreliable, given the HISTORY of it, but what we are starting to see since occupy wall street days is an account that is more reliable BECAUSE it is also recorded.
When the testimony of the witnesses are compared to other evidence, I want to see that record too.
branford
(4,462 posts)It's not that all witnesses lie or act in bad faith, because they most certainly do not, it's just than human memory and perception is not nearly as exact as many believe or expect. Conversely, the partisanship or lack of credibility of bad-faith witnesses is fairly easy to discern by any competent attorney or investigator.
I'm I trial attorney in NYC (commercial, not criminal), and I can assure you than in any given circumstance, you can find multiple witnesses of impeccable character and honesty, and who purportedly directly witnessed or had knowledge of a particular act or circumstance, yet whose testimonies are radically different. This is a constant in our judicial system, as any lawyer can attest. It's hardly controversial. That is why documentary and related materials, and in the case of criminal matters, forensic evidence, is so critically important. It provides its own information and informs the credibility of witnesses. In the modern era, with scientific and forensic advancements (and, sadly, unrealistic television programs and movies), the expectation for such evidence has only grown, and some juries will not even convict without it.
As to judging what has been thus far released as either reliable or unreliable, neither you, I or any other member of the general public is any position to render an informed opinion. The credibility of witnesses should be determined in the context of all other witnesses and evidence, i.e., a hearing or trial, or at least knowledge of all that's available to the government. At this juncture, we know but a mere fraction of what is available to the district attorney, Department of Justice, police, FBI and the sitting grand jury. Moreover, preconceived notions about the police, minority youth, racism, or anything remotely related to the Brown incident, is exactly the type of prejudice that would render someone ineligible to serve on a relevant jury, as it prevents an objective review of all the evidence and would incorporate inadmissible material outside the confines of a trial and judicial instruction, and of course, such opinion is definitely not evidence.
The entire grand jury transcripts should prove most enlightening . . .
heaven05
(18,124 posts)the recorded 'evidence' of this incident, of which there is some reliable content. Just the guy, on the video, with his hands in the air saying WTF after Micheal Brown was gunned down gives credence to something being amiss. That's prejudicial though, right? The woman who came up on Brown and wilson tussling in the car and Brown running away, shot, turns around with hands in air and then shot. Unreliable? Okay, if you say so counselor.
branford
(4,462 posts)First, I didn't say all evidence was unreliable, just primarily eyewitness testimony, which is the majority of what we've seen and heard because these witnesses have chosen to speak with the press, something that prosecutors usually hate because any statements can be used for cross-examination to impeach the witnesses or demonstrate that the witnesses were inappropriately coordinating their testimony. I can assure you that the witnesses that we have yet to hear from will likely have the greatest impact and credibility, regardless of whether they support Brown or Wilson.
Second, I never even remotely stated that the shooting was not "something being amiss." My comments concerned the difficult evidentiary and due process burdens necessary to achieve a criminal conviction, and that federal civil rights charges must meet even higher and more difficult standards. Simply, even if Wilson committed a morally heinous act, that does not mean he broke the law (state or federal), and even if he broke the law, that does not mean the government can prove its case it a court of law. We don't operate with mob justice.
Third, focusing and relying upon one piece of evidence like the recording you reference, without knowledge of all the other evidence and witnesses, is foolish and irresponsible. For instance, you claim that Brown definitely had his hands up when he was shot. However, the autopsy reports (both the country's and family's) casts serious doubt on that assertion, as well as many other claims by some of the known witnesses. There is a lot about the incident we have yet to learn.
Fourth, you've clearly and explicitly decided that a provable crime has occurred before most of the evidence has been released, no less subject to scrutiny, and made clear that you would not consider contrary evidence or question the officer's purported guilt. So, yes, that is the very definition of unfairly prejudicial. You, or anyone, is certainly entitled to their opinions and preconceived notions, justified or not, but those who lack an open mind, refuse to accept that the officer is presumed innocent, and are unwilling to objectively review only the totality of admissible evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, will not, and should not, ever serve on a jury. The District Attorney and AG Holder will need sufficient evidence to convince people who've not already made up their minds, a difficult task that you appear to take completely for granted.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)same old tripe and BS. Expected and thrown into the trash.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)How is what he said BS? That is exactly how evidence collection and analysis occurs in the Army as well. That was one of the best most logical posts on this topic I have seen on DU, removed of all emotion and arguing the merits of the evidence......just like you are supposed to do.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)
the evidence that is tainted!!!!!! Jesus, since you want to invoke the lord, yeah I'm emotional and there is a place for it in this discussion for an emotional take on the continuing murder of unarmed, young black males. I know the tactic used by and of, you know "he's such an angry person", black usually. While on the other end it's "Oh He is such a logical, logical person with a total grasp of the 'truth' and ALL the evidence". BS. I am suspect of a lot of the words written here by those who have to believe the 'evidence' as leaked by the 'authorities'. Who do you think you're fooling? Not me. None of you logical, reasoned individuals with a definite stake in maintaining the 'status quo can ever be capable of feeling much about the murder(s) of unarmed black youth.........it's your curse. I'm done with all of this group, the logical wait for evidence group. Everyone in that group will feel safer when wilson is back on the street with his gun and others who are still out there waiting to unload a magazine while protecting.....life and property...... good day to you.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)about anyone's untimely and needless death. It doesn't mean I turn my brain off and ignore evidence. Use your mind, be thoughtful, be analytical, be dispassionate, because dispassionate when conducting analysis is the key to finding truth.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)tell that to someone who is not facing a bullet or bullets by state sanctioned executioners everyday in our land of the free and home of the brave. Please, the tripe on here is tremendously thick and I'm done with trying to wade through it. All of you will, I'm sure, sleep better at night knowing wilson is back on the job when he is found to have committed justifiable homicide and given his gun back to protect .....life and property...
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)honest debate. You just want to push your own personal agenda. I understand.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)from people with a vested interest in maintaining the ongoing agenda of sanctioning this murder. AA witnesses? Hidden witnesses? Forensic evidence? All purported by a grand jury that is suspect in it's location and probable racial makeup. I understand the status quo must be maintained as evidenced by some responses here, but murder is murder. State sanctioned execution is execution none the less. Obfuscation is the name of the game. Disappointment won't begin to describe anything if this murderer is allowed to walk free.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... will come to the "right" decision?
Right?
I go on precedent and history. Period. Nothing "racist" about it. I am saying that the RACIAL makeup, if ever known, will be stacked in executioner wilson's favor. Precedent and history proves that fact, fest.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Rationalize how you please...
heaven05
(18,124 posts)given your understanding of "racist". No relevance to me. Look fest, nothing you or any other supporter of wilson says will EVER change my mind about this execution and the white wash being developed here. Enable if you please............alert if you think I'm "racist". I DON'T CARE. Nothing that can be done to me by the enablers would cause me any concern.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)When folks just come out and declare that nothing can change their mind... It's like folks who believe in the 6000 year old earth and revel in the fact that no new data could ever alter that belief.
You seem proud of the fact that you have a closed mind.
Lastly, I would never alert on such a thing. I much prefer that everyone have a clear understanding of you and let the evidence speak for itself.
Cheers....
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and pride has nothing to do with it, just experience that disproves your pithy understanding of the reality of living while black in this culture. Good for you....on the alerts........... and yes I do have people that answer you as I and are telling the truth. Your responses speak OUT LOUD and gives a certain clear understanding of certain agendas put forth in your response(s), to me. Cheers to you fest..........
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... That is the literal definition of a closed mind.
A second ago you were proud... What happened?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)have you pegged and are correct. Have a good one. Still proud to have eyes open and awareness of this racist culture intact....I really am done with you. Don't need it in my life. I have had enough. Good day to you. Period.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Executioner Wilson is proof that you could care less what the evidence says, your mind is already made up. Open mindedness is a virtue you know.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)But they need to find some way to address this. It simply won't end there.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Does the evidence have to be higher than Everest?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)is a pretty high bar to overcome.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)You try to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
Apparently it is only a high bar when cops are involved...the rest of us, not so much.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Forensics evidence is pretty hard to overcome.
blackspade
(10,056 posts) AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I was going to say the exact same thing to you.
blackspade
(10,056 posts) AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Well answer this then:
Are you arguing that there is not a tiered justice system in this country?
Where the folks who have power either because of their wealth or their status within the 'justice' system are granted leniency throughout the process?
That common citizens have a much lower threshold of evidence that prosecutors and police have to argue to get indictments and convictions?
I just want to be clear about your position.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)n/t
The threshold is the same, and people with wealth OCCASIONALLY get away with more crimes, but I blame Prosecution far more than I blame some rigged game where "white privilege" is the reason.
For Full Disclosure: I am not white and nothing irritates me further than the belief that whites have some kind of insider advantage. I am from El Paso and there is no white privilege there, if anything we have Brown privilege in my home town, so no I don't think rich white people get away with it all the time.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Because what you are saying is demonstrably false.
The threshold is the same, and people with wealth OCCASIONALLY get away with more crimes, but I blame Prosecution far more than I blame some rigged game where "white privilege" is the reason.
The threshold for prosecution and arrest is not the same for Whites, Blacks, or Latinos. That is borne out in statistics readily available on the internet, many from your own state. Blacks are disproportionately arrested, jailed, and killed compared to white people. So yes, "white privilege" is a factor.
Wealth is also an indicator for whether a person will face prosecution and arrest. The wealthy get away with crimes all of the time because they have the money and social cache to fight charges not only in court but in the public arena. The fact that many of the wealthy are politically connected makes it unlikely that they will face any real threat of jail time. Members of the justice system enjoy similar privileges. Cops get away with murder and abuse all the time, prosecutors commit misconduct, and judges abuse their power and are rare held accountable.
But, thanks for answering my question. I now understand where your going wrong with your arguments.
branford
(4,462 posts)The wealthy have the ability to hire better attorneys and invest more in experts and investigators.
This is no great secret. When the wealthy have better outcomes, it's not backroom deals, political connections or even racism, the vast, vast majority of the time. In any criminal trial, although the prosecution has to meet a high standard, they are generally well funded, and poorly financed and overworked defense counsel, often appointed by the state for poor minority defendants, simply lack the resources or sometimes legal acumen and experience to prevail.
Few jurors are racists, but they will generally respond to talented, experienced, and high price attorneys and the impressive experts that wealth can hire. The best example is probably the OJ Simpson trial.
If you want to improve outcomes for poor minority defendants, simply providing better funding to the local public defender might have a much greater effect that all the anti-racism marches and protests, no less riots, in Ferguson or anywhere else.
I would also note that African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and other minorities, including women, are very well-represented on many police forces and in district attorneys offices, particularly in most major cities. Sadly, not only are young black men disproportionately criminal defendants, their victims are also minorities in their own communities, they are arrested by minority police officers and prosecuted by minority assistant district attorneys.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Obviously, the wealthy have access to better representation. But it is also a fact that wealthy people are not charged at the same rates as the poor and minorities. Even when they are, they are granted novel defenses by prosecutors and judges that allow them to serve little or no time.
And I think that you are underestimating the effect that race and class impact the perceptions of jurors. While they may not be overtly racist, many jurors hold bigoted and stereotypical opinions about the poor and minorities that can have a dramatic impact on case outcome.
That minorities and women are represented in the justice system may be true, they are also part of a system that disproportionally indicts and imprisons the poor and minorities, while letting off privileged elites, including themselves, for crimes that would see common citizens behind bars.
That minorities and women are part of the justice system has obviously not made it more fair or rational. Instead they, like their white man predecessors, have been suborned into a system that perpetuates a power structure that suppresses minorities, the poor, and increasingly the middle class.
branford
(4,462 posts)as is apparent from my other posts, particularly since jurors are often minority and poor, I'm far more curious what solutions you actually suggest and what practical justice system, run by real and imperfect human beings, could possibly satisfy you concerns? Your analysis seems to ultimately render everyone, regardless of class, race, gender, etc., as no different than their "white male predecessors (sic)" (I assume you mean oppressors) and their "power structure."
It almost sounds as if you believe that some grand communist or anarchist revolution needs to sweep through the land, and it will change human nature itself. Or, on a less grand scope, do you propose altering the fundamentals of much of western jurisprudence, such as eliminating the presumption of innocence, right to an attorney, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, due process, trial be jury, etc.?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)And not one that is simple to address.
What we have is a systemic issue with the justice system. One that rewards maintaining an inherently biased and oppressive process, no matter who is running it. Like any system, new members are indoctrinated into its functions and those that rock the boat, as it were, are penalized and driven out. Note that this is not exclusive to the justice system, but corporate, and various governmental systems as well.
As for a grand revolution, I am old enough, and, by career, knowledgeable enough to know that there are no 'grand revolutions.' Revolutions are messy and often have unintended consequences. Small systemic revolutions within our existing social frameworks, on the other hand, are eminently doable. Education should be the best way to achieve this, but unfortunately the Reagan administration started that ball rolling off a cliff, so politically brave leadership both at the local and Federal level are needed to repair what should be an excellent example of Western jurisprudence. But that takes courage which is sorely lacking. So, it is falling to demonstrators and activists to lead the charge for change. Unfortunately some of these groups are not the ones that you want leading.
As for the fundamentals as you call them, I have no issue with them. What I have issue with is the unfair application of the laws that make up the system. When laws are applied in a draconian way to minorities and the poor and in a lenient way to those in power, it is not the fundamentals that are at fault and needing of change, it is the people who are applying that need to be changed.
Hopefully that clarifies my position to you.
My questions to you:
How would you change the system to eliminate the obvious racial and class biases that exist within it?
Do the administrators of the system have a duty to make these changes?
If not who?
branford
(4,462 posts)yet believe all who partake of, no less benefit, from a system, will be inherently corrupted, I don't see how any "small systemic revolutions," education or different political leadership, could demonstrably change much of anything. As I understand your argument, you are basically stating that anyone who benefits from a system, corporate, political, justice, etc., ultimately propagates the worst aspects of the system. In essence, your point appears to be that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, regardless of race, gender or any other condition. I do not disagree entirely with such a premise, although I believe it's far less pronounced in its application, particularly with respect to our criminal justice system.
As for my own suggested solutions, I first recognize that there are no perfect solutions or system. Humans are selfish, tribal and fallible. We should simply mitigate are base natures and prejudicial leanings to the extent possible. I believe the fundamental design of our justice system offers the best opportunity for blind justice and fair outcomes.
It's also necessary to view the criminal justice system and racism in a historic context. It should not be forgotten that not too long ago overt racial discrimination was perfectly legal and expected. Look how far we've come since slavery and Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights Movement and an African-American president and attorney general. Compared to times in living memory, we have already made great strides in eliminating racial disparities. Although we have work yet to accomplish, eliminating all vestiges of discrimination will take time, but the journey has certainly begun.
In order to continue on a positive trajectory, much of the work that still needs to be done is probably outside of the criminal justice system itself. Educating children about the evils of judging someone by the color of their skin and increasing participation of minorities in the middle and upper class workforce, and within in the criminal justice system, not as defendants, but as judges, lawyers, clerks, and even police officers, will probably have the greatest impact. To ensure better outcomes for minority defendants (or minority youth more generally), adequate funding needs to be provided for public defenders, as well as social and family services.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But you make some good points that things are better than they were 50 years ago and that education is a key mitigater of racism and bigotry as is the further integration of our society.
We will have to agree to disagree on the inherent discrimination that is part of our current justice system. I will not argue that it is not better than 50 years ago, but instead that it is not better than it should be now. Perhaps prior to the video age, cops were worse than they are today, but our militarized police forces certainly seem out of control to me. There is no checks to their abuse of power within our current system. Perhaps community review boards would help as would leadership that took a dim view of LE abuse of power.
branford
(4,462 posts)Although I respect privacy, and do not generally believe that someone needs to be constantly monitored, regardless of whether they are a government employee, the pros vastly outweigh the cons in the police context. Many law enforcement officers actually agree.
A camera truly levels the playing field. Not only does it help ensure that officers follow proper procedure and decorum, thereby minimizing use undue force and harassment, but it also protects officers from unfounded claims and is often used as evidence against arrestees who are violent or otherwise behave criminally, and even helps defend against claims of improper searches, lack of exigent circumstances, and similar matters. One of the reasons why cameras have propagated so quickly among police departments is not so much that they protect the public, but they protect police officers. It's usually a win-win situation for both the public and police.
I very much wish Officer Wilson was wearing a camera and many of the current doubts about the incident dispelled. Nevertheless, even if video evidence proved Wilson followed proper procedure and/or he was attacked by Brown as apparently alleged by Wilson in the grand jury, I sadly believe that many here would still demand he face murder charges to symbolically remedy past institutional racism or under other unfounded and unreasonable pretexts like demands officers only "shoot to wound."
blackspade
(10,056 posts)While I too wish he had worn a camera that day, I think that you are way off thinking that "many here would still demand he face murder charges to symbolically remedy past institutional racism."
I don't think any folks here would want Wilson, if he had a legit reason for gunning Brown down, to be symbolically punished for past institutional failures.
What folks want is a transparent system of justice, that treats all civilians, including cops equally under the law.
that is not happening in this case.
branford
(4,462 posts)would not completely overlap with what many here consider a "legit" shooting.
I've read far too many posts about why don't officers "shoot to wound," how many bullets officers are allowed to fire, etc., to assume that even a clear exculpatory (as a matter of law) video would have demonstrably dampened the rage of many here or in Ferguson. For many, Michael Brown and Darren Wilson are not so much real people, as they are symbols. As evidence of my point, and the main topic of this very thread, even if our African-American Attorney General declares that there is insufficient evidence to bring civil rights charges (no less secure a conviction), that is clearly not enough to diminish the demands for Wilson to be punished for the purported crime.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)from a place in reality and not in the world that exists within your own mind. There is one system. ONE. As I pointed out earlier, I would be very interested if you could point me to the documents that show our two tiered system that exists in your mind. Money buys better lawyers, that is not a crime.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But probably aren't. And more's the pity.
I'm not arguing that there is more than 'one justice system.' I am arguing that it is applied in a tiered fashion.
Justice, unfortunately depends on where you fall within the social fabric of this nation. It is a fact that if you are poor and/or a minority that you will feel the weight of the justice system far more often and to a greater extent that if you are white, wealthy, or a member of the justice system itself.
Money buys better lawyers, that is not a crime.
You make one of my points eloquently for me, thanks.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)It is like arguing with a brick wall. You want to see racism everywhere and want to believe cops are all murderers and if Wilson is not indicted it can only be racism. I can't help you if you won't even be objective.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Racism is everywhere whether you like it or not. Notice, not every person, but everywhere. Bigots and racists are in every community.
And no, all cops are not murderers. Some however are, and their asses are covered by a system that does no meaningful self examination or self regulation.
If Wilson is not indicted, it will be because there is a bias in the system that treats LEs differently than the average citizen. The fact that Brown was black increases the unlikelihood that he will be charged. To argue otherwise is to just ignore reality.
Objectivity requires that you understand others viewpoints. I understand yours. They're just not based on the systemic facts that govern out justice system. Therefore, yes, you are talking to a brick wall, because objectively, your argument is false.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Trayvon, now Michael. The country is heading straight to hell.
The grand jury WILL let this murderer go, guaranteed. 
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Forensic and eyewitness. If the Forensic evidence does not support the eyewitness evidence it would be criminal to indict. Forensic evidence is scientifically grounded, Eyewitness evidence relies on humans being unbiased and 100% factually correct. Both are hard to get in flawed human beings.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)and they did go after an win against the officers who beat King.
Then again thats assuming the rioters arent just using the shooting as an excuse to riot and loot the varies businesses.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)the 4 LAPD cops were acquitted in Simi Valley? IIRC, the federal civil rights indictments didn't happen until AFTER the uprising. So I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)officers were clearly guilty of excessive force imo.
I also disagreed with the rioters attacking Reginald Denny as well as the verdict rendered in that case.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Federal charges. So if you agreed with the federal charges, but disagreed with the rioting that compelled the filing of those federal charges, why they we've got a bit of a logical lacuna.
The only way George H.W. Bush's DoJ was going to press federal charges was IF there was a big riot. Otherwise, they would have let Denny's beating vanish into the dustbin of history.
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)King was the one who was assaulted by the officers not Denny, Denny was the trucker who was pulled out of his truck and struck in the head with a brick.
As for the riots themselves I think its silly to try and argue they were "good" because they allegedly were what caused the feds to get involved because its a good bet imo that the feds were going to get involved especially after the video of the beating that was given to King they were probably just waiting for the state to get done with its case.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)same old tripe and BS from state and federal 'officials' wilson WILL walk free. And all who on here who with their very slick usage of the english language who WILL applaud this upcoming travesty, zimpigs vindication is my precedent, will show up and blah, blah, blah...proof wasn't there, ect, ect, ect. I will............well I am well versed on the ability of some to turn murder into a vindicated act of 'self defense'.
Gemini Cat
(2,820 posts)The pretty words that are used, do not hide the underlying bullshit. It's amazing when a person of colour is murdered, all the pretty little words come out to justify it. They refuse to get it.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)are part of the legal system that binds this country together. Without things like evidence and motive and forensics, we turn into a bloodthirsty mob looking to settle scores. No thanks.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)St. Louis County DA McCulloch's presentation of this case to this Grand Jury?
In your view, McCulloch represent 'things like evidence and motive and forensics,' eh?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)they are under a freaking microscope from the media, from the Feds and from various watchdog groups, so YES I do believe they are playing this by the book.
Let me ask you: If the Grand Jury return no indictment and the DOJ returns no indictment will it be because the Grand Jury and the DOJ are racist or could it possible be because the evidence didn't support an indictment?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)from departing from tradition in the manner which he chose to 'present' the evidence, forensics and such-like.
Here's Dana Milbank's take on it in the Washington Post:
October is when a grand jury is expected to decide whether to indict the white police officer, Darren Wilson, who killed an unarmed black teenager by firing at least six bullets into him. It’s a good bet the grand jurors won’t charge him, because all signs indicate that the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, doesn’t want them to.
The latest evidence that the fix is in came this week from The Post’s Kimberly Kindy and Carol Leonnig, who discovered that McCulloch’s office has declined so far to recommend any charges to the grand jury. Instead, McCulloch’s prosecutors handling the case are taking the highly unusual course of dumping all evidence on the jurors and leaving them to make sense of it.
McCulloch’s office claims that this is a way to give more authority to the grand jurors, but it looks more like a way to avoid charging Wilson at all — and to use the grand jury as cover for the outrage that will ensue. It is often said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it to. But the opposite is also true. A grand jury is less likely to deliver an indictment — even a much deserved one — if a prosecutor doesn’t ask for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-ferguson-tragedy-becoming-a-farce/2014/09/12/e52226ca-3a82-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html
The point is that a Grand Jury with McCulloch at its helm that does not indict will NEVER be viewed by Ferguson's black residents or the country's black citizens as legitimate. In a sense, it really doesn't matter what the evidence is. With McCulloch at the helm of a GJ that does not indict, there can be no trust that the outcome is a fair assessment.
Still willing to stand by McCulloch's conduct of the case?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)still not willing to answer my simple question?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)McCulloch presides over this Grand Jury. McCulloch has got to recuse himself so that MO Governor Nixon can appoint a Special Prosecutor with no ties to St. Louis-area law enforcement.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)If the DOJ and the Grand Jury return no indictment is it racism?
Glad you are having fun on DU.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)possible that Wilson murdered Brown without meeting the standard of violating his civil rights. IANAL, so the lawyers can debate that.
So, back to your question. Racism or lack of probable cause are not the only two possible explanations for no indictments. The GJ could refuse to return an indictment not because of racism but because McCulloch has a distinct conflict of interest. That is, he must work with local law enforcement after the MB case has been disposed of, thus can ill afford to alienate law enforcement. So the GJ might refuse to indict, not because of racism but because McCulloch's conflict of interest throws the case. Call it the institutional perogative.
IOW, you're presenting me with a false choice to try to paint me into a corner. And I do not accept the parameters of the choice as you present it. I'm glad you are also having fun on DU.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)You refuse to answer the question.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)You don't care about the facts. You care about the presentation it seems...
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)interest, but also the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Can you honestly say you have full confidence that McCulloch has met that (higher) standard? If so, then we really have nothing further to discuss. You trust McCulloch and the existing judicial process to deliver a fair outcome; I do not. We are not going to convince one another to have trust.
McCulloch has got to go.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)He is assumed to be unworthy until he proves that he isn't...
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)confidence in the GJ process as administered by DA McCulloch: yes or no?
October is when a grand jury is expected to decide whether to indict the white police officer, Darren Wilson, who killed an unarmed black teenager by firing at least six bullets into him. It’s a good bet the grand jurors won’t charge him, because all signs indicate that the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, doesn’t want them to.
The latest evidence that the fix is in came this week from The Post’s Kimberly Kindy and Carol Leonnig, who discovered that McCulloch’s office has declined so far to recommend any charges to the grand jury. Instead, McCulloch’s prosecutors handling the case are taking the highly unusual course of dumping all evidence on the jurors and leaving them to make sense of it.
McCulloch’s office claims that this is a way to give more authority to the grand jurors, but it looks more like a way to avoid charging Wilson at all — and to use the grand jury as cover for the outrage that will ensue. It is often said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it to. But the opposite is also true. A grand jury is less likely to deliver an indictment — even a much deserved one — if a prosecutor doesn’t ask for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-ferguson-tragedy-becoming-a-farce/2014/09/12/e52226ca-3a82-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... that thousands of others before have met and was morally acceptable to the masses and I don't see any illegal deviation from it.
If you don't like the law, then that's another thing but as it stands nothing to show that he has stepped outside of it legally or ethically.
Maybe you think DAs should be like Mike Nifong and push for conviction in every case evidence not withstanding.
That is a huge part of the job of the DA to be the first line analyst of whether or not a crime really was committed. It is not his mandate to go after every investigation with the sole purpose of gaining a conviction.
Coming to a conclusion that you disagree with, based on legal evidence and procedure is not unethical.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)either McCulloch's bona fides or about the larger ability of our system as constructed to deliver justice in this case. So there's really nothing further to discuss regarding Ferguson or related matters. Perhaps there will be in a few months. Time will tell. Until then, have a good life and vote Dem!
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)H.W. Bush was Reagan's VP before becoming Prez. Yeah, the Reagan who launched his 1980 campaign in . . . of all possible places Philadelphia, MS. If you think Bush Sr.'s DoJ had planned a civil rights inquiry before the initial acquittal, you're almost alone in that assessment, as the timeline simply does not support you.
April 30, 1992 President George Bush announces that he has ordered the Department of Justice to investigate the possibility of filing charges against the LAPD officers for violating the federal civil rights of Rodney King.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingchronology.html
Since the riots had barely begun 24 hour earlier when Bush Sr. ordered the DoJ assessment, one can legitimately question whether they 'caused' Bush to issue his order. But it is indisputable that Bush Sr.'s orders to the DoJ (or at least the announcement thereof) came only after the riots had begun.
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)just waiting.
I mean usually they do tend to wait until later on to bring federal charges while there is an ongoing state investigation and besides can you imagine the nightmare of trying to hold 2 trials at the same time for the same crime both in state and federal court? Talk about giving them grounds for appeal on a silver platter.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 09:14 AM - Edit history (1)
for sure. Now question. As america stands now, in the eyes of people of color and most women and all poor, with the voting suppression, the turning back of civil rights, police abuse and murder ect, do you have an stake in maintaining the status quo as is?
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)I grew up moving from house to house because we couldnt afford the rent and not much has changed since then though I havent had to move as often and I struggle every month to balance the bills and it never seems like I will make it so dont fucking try to imply I dont know what its like to be "poor".
heaven05
(18,124 posts)you also know what it's like to live while black in america then.
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)any opinion that your experience has created. I have mine. Never the twain shall meet. good day to you.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)We all new this would happen. Not in the least bit surprised. Usually the police force is free from jail. I've seen it happen too many times for too long.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....and making a fortune doing it.
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)run for office but its going to have to be their decision as we cant force them to get involved be it in running for office or atleast voting if they dont want to.
heaven05
(18,124 posts) Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Wanna bet there's a law that says you can't run for office with a record?
cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)"A person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to or is convicted of a felony in Missouri or any law in another jurisdiction that would be a felony in Missouri is not allowed to hold public office until the completion of his/her sentence or period of probation. §"
If true then statically you would think that there would be more than enough people in the area that qualify to run for the varies elected offices.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)the question is that or something similar being done in Ferguson like say a difficult to meet voter ID law?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)
this is amerikkka. Federal charges, hard to put on that POS wilson, local charges WON'T be put on that POS wilson. Expected and expect nothing less or more. This is a white cop in a very racist town/geographical area, shooting and killing an unarmed young black male who has been characterized sufficiently here and in other media(s)as a 'thug' deserving ten bullets, some from the back. Sound familiar? Justice WILL NOT be forthcoming and you can bet your bottom dollar we will see the militarized cops invading ferguson's black section of town again before this is all over. They have laid the groundwork for vindication of the murderer wilson and they shall proceed with letting him get his 'get out of jail time' walk free card. Period. Slow slide to hell. I really do hope there is an everlasting hell waiting, at their death, for cops and wannabe's like wilson and zimpig. That's the only justice there will ever be for all murdered black people at the hands of state sanctioned murderers. Firestorm worse than Dresden in the making...........
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)'social contract,' then his death will not have been entirely in vain.
What might constitute the foundations of that new social contract? I have some ideas and I'm sure you do also. If enough of us can coalesce around a common set of ideas, we can make the legacy of Michael Brown one that rivals, if it does not surpass, Abraham Lincoln's.
The blatherings of the copologists represent the "old" ways of thinking. We must fashion "new" ways of thinking that move us forward as a nation, as a people and, thinking globally for a moment, as a species. This can be that moment if we but choose to make it so.
LuvLoogie
(8,805 posts)The vote. Use it or loose it.
AG Holder and President Obama can't, won't, ain't gonna do a thing about it. I don't see why though. If they can do it in Albequerque, why can't they do it in Ferguson?
The citizens of Ferguson will need to turn their righteous anger into civic action. Can't wait on the Feds. Vote local.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)you are on the right path with your thinking. I hope I see the day you envision. I have wanted and have worked for such since my first experience with racist hate. Still working and hopefully younger people will continue. From some I have experienced here, a fair and balanced non-racist society is still possible. Thanks.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Is that some hip new buzzword or hashtag?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)think I even know what a hashtag is. I do not think I'm clever enough to coin buzzwords but, if I am, my PayPal account is badly in need of some royalties to replenish its coffers 
JustAnotherGen
(38,031 posts)He had another investigation pop up - remember that?
It took almost 40 years to convict B. Cherry.
It took almost 70 years for the descendents and survivors of Rosewood to get justice for the state sanctioned murders, seizure/theft of property by race rioting white people.
I hope for your sake - due to your age - you get to see Wilson enter the valley of comeuppence sooner than that. But he will.
The Zimpig will get what's coming to him too - someday. But I think it's going to come from a woman. He's going to smack around the wrong woman someday.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)that last picture raised in my mind about a woman and zimpig made me chuckle. That would be perfect irony for that character. Yeah he's stupid enough to make a mistake like that. I pray there is extra terrestrial justice out there waiting for all like wilson. Ain't none here. I fear never will be. Thanks for the supportive words. Willful ignorance and stupidity does frustrate me, at times.
JustAnotherGen
(38,031 posts)I saw where the argument on this thread went to "no black people anywhere". Someone tried that against 1Strong this summer and I shut it down. What the hell does tribal fights in Africa have to do with black folks in America? Not one god damned thing. It's a dodge, deflect, defer. Shame on anyone who does that. It is inherently dishonest when discussing race in America and pushes me to put someone in the beneath me slot.
Yeah - Zim isn't exactly a woman's man. I believe those allegations made by his cousin. I believe he's abusive. A belligerent, abusive bully is what he is. Someday he's going to smack the wrong woman and threaten her with a gun - and she's going to take a cast iron pan to him while he's sleeping.
^That was my husband's first instinct re Zimmerman when the incident with his then wife happened after he walked - the one with the iPad. Then the bogus 'security' job. He truly believes that men who hurt women always get theirs in the end. Him being a woman hating man will do him in eventually. The Gio declared it. You heard it from him first!^
Township75
(3,535 posts)You remember that announcement, right?
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)cstanleytech
(28,455 posts)that the officer broke a federal law.
Thats not to say that they cant come after him later on if something should turn up that shows the officer broke a federal law but unless that happens they cant charge him with anything.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)Patriots tortured some folks because it was a hard time, or something like that.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 4, 2014, 03:41 PM - Edit history (5)
many decades ago having my mind filled with lies about the 'greatness and exceptionalism' that was our democracy, I believed it. So much so, that coming from a family that had served this country since "buffalo soldier" days, I volunteered for the U. S. Army. 1 year and a half later I volunteered for service in Vietnam. After spending my days and nights there for 13 month, on convoy duty and night time berm guard duty, I came home expecting things to have gotten better for black people. They had not in spite of the window dressing gotten a few years earlier in the guise of voting and civil rights 'laws'. Then came Nixon in 1972 and his 'southern strategy'.
Used the GI bill to enter college, that bill IS described as an ' unnecessary entitlement' by many in the RW today. I stayed at one college for two years and ended up in Boston at Boston University for the next three. Mark Clark and Fred Jackson had already been assassinated by the chicago police a few months back. I took notice of the circumstances. Didn't like what I saw. Started fighting for the release of Angela Davis in 1971. We prevailed and a beautiful black sister was freed from the confines of the state incarceration system. Dr. Davis is still lecturing today. That fight for her freedom along with the assassination of George Jackson, the shooting and killing of white student protestors on the campus of Kent State opened my eyes further to the realities of the powers that were and still are running this country and the world. They care nothing of the fate of billions, just how much money, power and control they can accrue over those billions. Then came Reagan in Philadelphia, Ms. kicking off his campaign. 1980-88 start of what we are all facing from the fascists and racists on the RW side today. Height of RW hypocrisy, then.
Jump to 2014, voting rights under attack. The 'Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' by black people under attack. And the attackers are the rabid pit bulls of the PTB, the republican and tea party congress people, present candidates and those in local and state governments. I'm voting just on principle tomorrow.
The point is for all on here deflecting, distracting and outright being willfully disingenuous about the state of racism in america and who the racists are, I'm just saying I'm glad to see resistance in Ferguson against all the lies and evil cropping up, again. Sad that it still is a fact of life in the black community to have to protest not to be murdered by racist 'officers of justice' who deny due process to their unarmed murdered victims. Yes I am so glad to see these protests there and in other places starting, again.
Many generations have passed since slavery days and people of color are still fighting for the right to vote and the right not to by lynched(murdered) by racists. Truly mind boggling, but given experience of decades with this system, not surprising in the least.
P.S. You really got things started and laid to rest about many as to who and who can't be trusted in a foxhole while in this latest battle in a long war for human, civil and voting rights. Thank you.
marcusqueen
(1 post)Funny how a single eyewitness can put a black man on death row, but a half dozen eyewitnesses can't get a cop a single misdemeanor charge when he commits murder.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)