Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Ferguson, MO

profile picture
Mr.Sloth
Posts: 5091 - Karma: 13,469
WHY THE FUCK ISN"T THERE A THREAD ON THIS


Heavily armed police have shut down Ferguson. There is a media blackout. Arresting reporters. The Missouri Militia supposedly has boots on the ground.

This is very fucked.
Aug 14 2014 12:36AM
1008 808
profile picture
louie.mirags
Posts: 6015 - Karma: 5,028
J.D.I dunno guys that cop's testimony seemed pretty reasonable. I mean, maybe he was lying but I'd leave it to the people actually there and listening to him to make that judgment call.


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


I just want to add that self-defense is a different story. So many scattered facts for me to be ok with saying it was self-defense. But, my opinion doesn't matter the courts decided he was in the right
Nov 26 2014 11:24AM
0 1
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
My point is, read some of the guy's grand jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

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

In other words, it seems like people just want to be angry about this but don't actually have a good reason to.
Nov 26 2014 11:47AM
7 0
profile picture
-emile-
Posts: 6610 - Karma: 8,589
J.D.people just want to be angry about this but don't actually have a good reason to.


well yeah , I thought that was a pretty well known fact..
Nov 26 2014 11:53AM
0 0
profile picture
dmski
Posts: 328 - Karma: 360
J.D.My point is, read some of the guy's grand jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

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

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


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

People in ferguson have lost it. An absolute nightmare. Those radical protestors should be charged with hate crimes and terror for destroying the city.
Nov 26 2014 11:53AM
0 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
J.D.In other words, it seems like people just want to be angry about this but don't actually have a good reason to.


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

Also, fun fact, did you know that in 2010 out of 162000 grand juries, grand juries declined to deliver an indictment in only 11 cases? That's 0.007% of the time.
Nov 26 2014 12:23PM
1 2
profile picture
madchronic
Posts: 460 - Karma: 324
I haven't really followed this much but I just saw this on Facebook. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/as-promised-anonymous-dumps-kkk-leaders-personal-info-online-in-ongoing-ferguson-dispute/
Nov 26 2014 12:25PM
3 0
profile picture
saskskier
Posts: 4772 - Karma: 9,984
UtardNope, sorry, people have every right to be pissed, because this trial was an absolute mockery of the "justice" system. Do you know what a grand jury is? The prosecutor controls the entire process. Every person who gets to enter that courtroom has to be vetted by the prosecutor. The defense's attorney isn't even allowed to be there unless the prosecutor OKs it. Grand juries are by and large these days vestigial structures. The purpose of a grand jury trial is just to indict a person on charges. That means that the grand jury's duty is just to say, "Yeah, we think there's enough evidence on the prosecutor's side to move the case to trial." There is no reason Wilson should not have been indicted. Even though he probably would have been eventually acquitted, there is at least enough evidence to raise the question as to whether this was a justified use of force. The only time a prosecutor fails to procure an indictment is when he doesn't want an indictment. People are pissed because the so-called justice system isn't even trying.

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


You realize JD is a lawyer right? Probably not the guy to be explaining legal process to...
Nov 26 2014 12:33PM
3 0
profile picture
rememberscott
Posts: 1291 - Karma: 5,199
The entire story is dumb this thread is dumb newschoolers isj dumb. People like u who cling to the media gives the popularity that it doesn't deserve. Go outside jackoff onto my moms face or slmeyhing
Nov 26 2014 12:35PM
1 5
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
saskskierYou realize JD is a lawyer right? Probably not the guy to be explaining legal process to...


sweet then he can tell me why I'm wrong
Nov 26 2014 12:36PM
0 4
profile picture
dmski
Posts: 328 - Karma: 360
Utardsweet then he can tell me why I'm wrong


This should be interesting...
Nov 26 2014 12:45PM
5 0
profile picture
rememberscott
Posts: 1291 - Karma: 5,199
saskskierYou realize JD is a lawyer right? Probably not the guy to be explaining legal process to...


Everyone in this thread thinks they're a lawyer. And yaal don't know shit
Nov 26 2014 12:50PM
0 5
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
J.D.My point is, read some of the guy's grand jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

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


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

If you read Dorian Johnson's original account of the incident you'll see it's completely ridiculous.
Nov 26 2014 1:00PM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
J.D.My point is, read some of the guy's grand jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/darren-wilson-testimony-ferguson-shooting.html

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

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

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

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


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

Most cases a prosecutor won't press charges if there isn't enough evidence to move foreword, during this case it seems fairly obvious that the prosecutor was under public pressure to move foreword on it and because of that moved foreword without enough evidence, resulting him not getting indicted. To me that is the justice system working, there wasn't enough evidence so the guy doesn't get tried
Nov 26 2014 1:26PM
3 0
profile picture
Scaredwhiteboy
Posts: 1395 - Karma: -946
louie.miragsI worked in a police dept as a dispatcher and there were def some stand-up dudes there. There was also a few young cops who would mention how they couldn't wait for a thug to get out of line so they could fight em or taser them. It is a ego/alpha trait. One cop was even in some hot water for abuse to a criminal. I also have a NYPD buddy who is on a few youtube police brutality videos and his situation is not great either. I would embed the video but they will get your blood boiling. Whether you back the cop for getting physical or you back the people for getting pissed, the videos are hard to watch. My main point is some people do not mind when criminals get beat up on, or shot. However, our legal system is there to handle the penalties for the criminals. Being ok with cops abusing their power via violence is scary.


This is a troll, right? "I would link to the video, but it would help my argument too much"
Nov 26 2014 1:29PM
1 3
profile picture
Scaredwhiteboy
Posts: 1395 - Karma: -946
Jane6







The only one of those that was a legitimate riot is Vancouver. Every other one is just hand-picking the most dramatic picture from the incident. Need I remind you that 12 buildings have been razed to ground in Ferguson already. How many buildings weren't burnt to the ground in Denver 2014?
Nov 26 2014 1:35PM
5 1
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
cool_nameIf you look at the autopsy report aswell, it lines up perfectly with his story


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

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


Nope, it's a mockery of the justice system because Darren Wilson was allowed to give testimony before the grand jury which means that the prosecutor presented them with exculpatory evidence. That's not the function of a grand jury. It's an injustice because I guarantee you that this prosecutor doesn't do this and won't do this in the future for any of his black drug dealing, murder, robbery, assault, or sexual crime suspects. Justice is supposed to be blind. That means that the prosecutor should have done his duty regardless of how he personally felt about the details of the case. Darren Wilson and the Brown family deserved a fair trial, and instead what they got is a prosecutor who took the law into his own hands and heavily biased the system in favor of the cop, and that's fucked up.
Nov 26 2014 1:45PM
0 5
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
UtardThat means that the grand jury's duty is just to say, "Yeah, we think there's enough evidence on the prosecutor's side to move the case to trial." There is no reason Wilson should not have been indicted. Even though he probably would have been eventually acquitted, there is at least enough evidence to raise the question as to whether this was a justified use of force.

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

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

I dunno I haven't been following it closely and I don't practice criminal law, much less Missouri law, but I have a hard time seeing anything that was done improperly here. Quite the opposite; it looks like the process was done so as to be as squeaky-clean as possible, which you can understand given the massive light shining on everything to do with this.
Nov 26 2014 1:47PM
6 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
J.D.Is that actually the legal standard in Missouri? "Raise the question"? Because it doesn't seem like much of a standard to me. Isn't it "probable cause"? Seems to me that the result was abnormal because this wasn't a normal grand jury process - everything was extremely public and there was a lot of pressure to be as transparent as possible. Sounds like the prosecutor just aired out everything there was to see and put it in the hands of the grand jury.

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

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


Do you think that for most of the other grand jury trials this prosecutor has been involved in he has allowed the defendant to testify or presented exculpatory evidence? I mean, it seems to me like the whole "squeaky-clean" method is just a front for the prosecutor to cover his ass and let the cop off. That's nice that he was legally allowed to do the things that he did, but if the law isn't applied equally in every case, that's an injustice. And if the evidence really is so strong on the cop's side, why would they be worried at all about just taking the case to trial so it at least looks like they're trying to be fair.
Nov 26 2014 2:02PM
0 3
profile picture
plyswthsqrrls
Posts: 838 - Karma: 2,269
UtardDo you think that for most of the other grand jury trials this prosecutor has been involved in he has allowed the defendant to testify or presented exculpatory evidence? I mean, it seems to me like the whole "squeaky-clean" method is just a front for the prosecutor to cover his ass and let the cop off. That's nice that he was legally allowed to do the things that he did, but if the law isn't applied equally in every case, that's an injustice. And if the evidence really is so strong on the cop's side, why would they be worried at all about just taking the case to trial so it at least looks like they're trying to be fair.


A trial for the sake of a trial would just be a waste of time and money
Nov 26 2014 2:03PM
2 1
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
plyswthsqrrlsA trial for the sake of a trial would just be a waste of time and money


2 questions:

1) What do you think the purpose of a trial is?
2) What do you think costs more, a criminal trial or the damages that have been/will continue to be done by rioters and the extra security needed to contain them by police working extra shifts and needing new riot gear, lost income from businesses being destroyed or closed, the national guard being called out, etc.
Nov 26 2014 2:13PM
1 4
profile picture
saskskier
Posts: 4772 - Karma: 9,984
Utard2 questions:

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


You don't think the exact same thing would happen if it went to trial and he was found not guilty? Ferguson would still burn. Citizens want Wilson's head regardless of whether or not he did anything wrong.
Nov 26 2014 2:15PM
5 0
profile picture
plyswthsqrrls
Posts: 838 - Karma: 2,269
Utard2 questions:

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


1) The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty
2) There would have been riots regardless of whether or not he was indicted. The rioters and the protestors are two different groups of people.
Nov 26 2014 2:16PM
0 0
profile picture
dmski
Posts: 328 - Karma: 360
plyswthsqrrls1) The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty
2) There would have been riots regardless of whether or not he was indicted. The rioters and the protestors are two different groups of people.


One way or another there would be a riot regardless of situation.

As for the trial, it seems like no one gets that the jury was trying to do their job. We don't know all the details and people didn't like what they were hearing and they wanted it to be sped up. You can't speed this kind of process up, especially since there is a huge national spotlight on this issue. Failure to look over all the evidence carefully and make an educated decision could be a hell storm but they seem to have tried to do a decent job of collecting evidence and reviewing.

For more info on witnesses and whatnot: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-decision-michael-brown-witness-testimony/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Nov 26 2014 2:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
saskskierYou don't think the exact same thing would happen if it went to trial and he was found not guilty? Ferguson would still burn. Citizens want Wilson's head regardless of whether or not he did anything wrong.


Honestly, I don't know. It seems just as probable that they would riot anyway and cause more damage vs. less damage. The two are undecideable. That's the thing about counterfactual cost/benefit analysis, it only works looking backwards. Sort of shows you how bad of an argument that is yeah? But I think we can reasonably say that we would be in a better off state financially right now if the grand jury had indicted.
Nov 26 2014 2:49PM
0 2
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
plyswthsqrrls1) The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty


I agree with you, except I would add that the purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty in a just manner. And it's pretty clear that what went down with that grand jury was pretty unjust. Firstly, Wilson wasn't allowed to have legal representation as far as I know, but even if he did its an injustice to every other defendant who's had to go through a grand jury because Wilson was afforded special privileges and protections that everyone else isn't.
Nov 26 2014 2:53PM
0 3
profile picture
Kekambas.
Posts: 904 - Karma: 485
16 million African Americans have lost their lives to abortion since roe v. wade #BlackLivesMatter
Nov 26 2014 2:54PM
5 1
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
dmskiOne way or another there would be a riot regardless of situation.

As for the trial, it seems like no one gets that the jury was trying to do their job. We don't know all the details and people didn't like what they were hearing and they wanted it to be sped up. You can't speed this kind of process up, especially since there is a huge national spotlight on this issue. Failure to look over all the evidence carefully and make an educated decision could be a hell storm but they seem to have tried to do a decent job of collecting evidence and reviewing.

For more info on witnesses and whatnot: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-decision-michael-brown-witness-testimony/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


We actually do have all the details, I posted a link to all the court documents a couple pages back, it seems jd is the only one who read them though
Nov 26 2014 2:58PM
0 0
profile picture
JahFeels
Posts: 779 - Karma: 587
So will people care about Ferguson next week...or nah?
Nov 26 2014 3:03PM
2 0
profile picture
El_Barto.
Posts: 11630 - Karma: 24,464
UtardHonestly, I don't know. It seems just as probable that they would riot anyway and cause more damage vs. less damage. The two are undecideable. That's the thing about counterfactual cost/benefit analysis, it only works looking backwards. Sort of shows you how bad of an argument that is yeah? But I think we can reasonably say that we would be in a better off state financially right now if the grand jury had indicted.


Im sure Wilson thought the same thing when he shot Brown. "Man, arresting this guy and putting him in jail is expensive. It will be much cheaper just to shoot him so im gonna shoot him to save money."

you still suck
Nov 26 2014 3:18PM
3 2
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
El_Barto.Im sure Wilson thought the same thing when he shot Brown. "Man, arresting this guy and putting him in jail is expensive. It will be much cheaper just to shoot him so im gonna shoot him to save money."

you still suck


UtardSort of shows you how bad of an argument that is yeah?


.
Nov 26 2014 4:02PM
1 3
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
The referenced post has been removed.


Over/under is the coverage of the missing Malaysia flight.
Nov 26 2014 9:27PM
4 0
profile picture
JAHpow
Posts: 7282 - Karma: 17,169
The referenced post has been removed.


theBearJewOver/under is the coverage of the missing Malaysia flight.


Lol remember when they had everyone convinced that Crimea was the start of WW3?
Nov 26 2014 10:01PM
1 0
profile picture
DasGoatenshafter
Posts: 580 - Karma: 307
saskskierYou don't think the exact same thing would happen if it went to trial and he was found not guilty? Ferguson would still burn. Citizens want Wilson's head regardless of whether or not he did anything wrong.


Its not just Ferguson. I'm in Ottawa, ON and there are posters all over campus saying "Black Lives Matter, Arrest Darren Wilson"

They protested at the US embassy I think. The students at this school get more political than I can handle.
Nov 27 2014 1:11AM
1 1
profile picture
Jane6
Posts: 5359 - Karma: 4,505
JAHpowLol remember when they had everyone convinced that Crimea was the start of WW3?


my dad's friends in Estonia and Lithuania are legit concerned over what the russians might be up to, and over there they're actually legit saying that they are expecting a war soon.
Sorry , this was off topic. As you were, gentlemen.
Nov 27 2014 5:33AM
3 1
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Jane6my dad's friends in Estonia and Lithuania are legit concerned over what the russians might be up to, and over there they're actually legit saying that they are expecting a war soon.
Sorry , this was off topic. As you were, gentlemen.


Actually, that should be on topic. We should be more worried about Russia than Ferguson.
Nov 27 2014 10:10AM
2 0
profile picture
AGOF
Posts: 2038 - Karma: 3,602
Jane6







Oh people have rioted for worse reasons so this ones ok. Thanks for clearing that up
Nov 27 2014 10:43AM
2 0
profile picture
saskskier
Posts: 4772 - Karma: 9,984
Sounds like Wilson resigned from Ferguson PD. Too bad, but not surprising at all. There is no way he and his family are able to continue living in Ferguson safely.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-resigns-attorney-says/article21838394/?click=sf_globe
Nov 29 2014 7:09PM
1 1
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
saskskierSounds like Wilson resigned from Ferguson PD. Too bad, but not surprising at all. There is no way he and his family are able to continue living in Ferguson safely.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-resigns-attorney-says/article21838394/?click=sf_globe


it would have been easier if they just lied and said they're sending him to jail and just had them go witness protection program somewhere else.
Nov 29 2014 7:36PM
1 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51307 - Karma: 158,048
Kekambas.16 million African Americans have lost their lives to abortion since roe v. wade #BlackLivesMatter



I don't discriminate. I'll abort anything.

Equal opportunity aborter.
Nov 29 2014 7:43PM
5 0
All times are Eastern (-4)