Ferguson decision is in -- NO INDICTMENT

[erowe1]

And YES- I am biased; biased against people who assume they know all w/o the facts

Doesn't that include pretty much everybody who thinks they know that they grand jury made the wrong decision?

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Honestly, and no shit.

This shit didn't happen in a vacuum, I've posted numerous well sourced articles that prove that police harassment, brutality and shakedowns in the Ferguson area have been ongoing for years.

People have had fucking enough, and I don't blame them.

I just wish they'd trash more government buildings and cop cars instead of local businesses, but a riot does not discriminate.

But as you noted, the forces of the Empire make sure to stand guard over their citadels and fortresses.

The common mundane's property?

Fuck 'em.

Just the Fergusaon area?????

GET REAL!

-t

 

[JK/SEA]

Wow.

So a lot happened while I was out drinking last night and asleep all day. Just finished catching up. Hopefully the violence will quiet down tonight so that more peaceful protests can continue.

I do consider burning down a police station to be a peaceful protest, so let's see some of that.

National Guard ramping up....

Sounds like a party for the cops tonight.

Anyone hear how many body bags they have?...

 

[orenbus]

Edit: Nvm not sure what is going on, on the stream, unconfirmed report.

Someone just drove his car into some protestors in Ferguson live stream here where he is being followed by protestor to make sure he is charged with "attempted vehicular homicide". Currently being transported in police van followed by 5 police car escort.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/goza-live

 

[moostraks]

It pisses me off that there are 1000 obvious cases that probably DESERVE riots, and then people gonna riot over the ones that don't. It's not about color. I wanted to see riots behind Miriam Carey. It's the media that's driving this, and by buying the media line, hook and sinker, we are worse off than when we started. There is now more division than before Ferguson, there is now more racial tension than before Ferguson. The right takes the police abuse less seriously than before, the left thinks the right is a bunch of old white racists more than they did before, and it's because Sharpton and the media have driven people to riot over Brown but ignore Carey, and Gurley, and so on.

If you are gonna riot, riot over the innocent victims of police brutality. Rioting for the likely guilty is counter-productive and it sets back the work most of us have been doing by years.

If anybody thinks that position makes me 'racist,' then the problem is within themselves.

Kick a hornet's nest and stand at the source you will experience more stinging. Consider the personality of folks involved and location of the rioting. What type of personality will riot and who will they identify with as well as where did the incident occur all play into which of these folks get traction. Media has reported numerous stories. Why aren't the working, single mothers standing outside the White House rioting? Why aren't the homeless folks rioting for Kelly Thomas?

If you want to be annoyed over the 1000 obvious cases that probably deserve rioting then you would have to start by blaming yourself, and me, and anyone else here who sees a problem but doesn't riot. It isn't likely going to be effective to expect others who, like I imagine you yourself may feel, as yet do not find rioting an effective response for the atrocities to jump up and head over to Washington and burn something to grab attention for Miriam Carey. Those cases are slowly establishing a tipping point where juries become skeptical and each family has someone who has suffered abuse at the hands of police. Looking at responses in various areas online it seems we shall have a long ways to go yet.

 

[orenbus]

 

[Ender]

Darren Wilson and the Protocols of Official Exoneration

William Norman Grigg

The most important details in Darren Wilson’s grand jury testimony come on pages 77-78 of the transcript. Asked if he had filled out an incident report on the shooting, Wilson explained that the “protocol” in such cases is to “contact your FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] representative and he will advise you of what to do step by step.”

When asked if he had committed his recollections to paper in a diary or journal, Wilson replied: “My statement has been written for my attorney.”

“And that’s between you and your attorney, then?” asked the exceptionally helpful prosecutor, who received an affirmative reply.

“So no one has asked you to write out a statement?” the assistant DA persisted.

“No, they haven’t,” Wilson acknowledged.

Like anybody else suspected of a crime, Wilson was presumed innocent and could not be forced to incriminate himself. Unlike a Mundane suspected of homicide, however, Wilson was given the luxury of crafting his story to fit subsequent disclosures, in consultation with a police union attorney who added the necessary melodramatic flourishes.

Thus we are told that when Wilson grabbed Brown’s forearm through the window of his SUV, “the only way I can describe it is I felt like a five-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan.”

Although the 18-year-old Brown possessed nearly 300 pounds of unathletic girth, Wilson was no nebbish: Like Brown, he stands 6’4″ and weighs 210 pounds.


After being shot during the altercation in the SUV, Brown displayed the face of a “demon,” Wilson claims. After fleeing from the officer, who continued to shoot at him, Brown could be seen “almost bulking up to run through the shots,” Wilson continued, a line that doubtless reflects the verbal artistry of a well-paid police union attorney.

Like others accused of a crime, Wilson had the right to counsel of his choice. In his case, however, a defense attorney was redundant.

The grand jury transcript from September 26 listed the case as “State of Missouri vs. Darren Wilson,” but the assistant St. Louis County District Attorneys who examined the suspect behaved more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Their advertised task was to determine if probable cause existed to justify criminal charges against Wilson for the shooting of tardily identified robbery suspect Michael Brown. The actual function they performed was to rationalize the killing in a way that would bring about Robert McCullouch’s intended result, the no-billing of the former police officer.

When a prosecutor actually seeks an indictment, he will not go to the trouble of presenting potentially exculpatory evidence. In fact, as former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell documents in her infuriating new book Licensed to Lie, prosecutors generally go through heroic contortions to withhold, disguise, misplace, or exclude “Brady” material. McCullouch, a prosecutor not known for his solicitude toward the accused unless they are swaddled in the vestments of the State’s coercive caste, made a point of making the case for the defense, which is a function usually carried out during a criminal trial by counsel for the defendant.

At various points in the 92-page transcript, we can see how McCullough’s carefully guided Wilson through his testimony, prompting him to follow the script provided by his police union attorney, and either ignoring or gently correcting him when caught in the kind of contradictions upon which a motivated prosecutor would triumphantly seize. For example: Wilson claimed that at one point, Brown had “complete control” over the officer’s firearm. Under the kind prompting from one of the unusually solicitous assistant DAs, Wilson admitted that the gun never left his hand, and that his was the finger on the trigger.

Wilson states that after he confronted Brown and Johnson (whom he did not identify as robbery suspects until after the initial contact) for jaywalking, Brown’s hostile attitude prompted him to call for backup and then cut them off with his police vehicle. When he tried to leave the vehicle, Brown allegedly shoved the car door shut and glared at the officer with an “intense face” as if intending to “overpower” him. At some point — Wilson isn’t clear on the details — Brown supposedly slugged the officer through the window.

Reciting a well-rehearsed script, Wilson told the jurors that he scrolled through non-lethal options before pulling his gun.

“Get back or I’m going to shoot you,” Wilson says he told Brown. At this point “He immediately grabs my gun and says, `You are too much of a pussy to shoot me,’” the officer claimed. Later in his testimony, Wilson elaborated: “He didn’t pull it from my holster, but whenever it was visible to him, he then took complete control of it.”

Wilson threatened to kill Brown; Brown refused to be shot. This complicates the self-defense claim, which rests on Wilson’s assertion that by this time he had been struck twice by the behemoth, and was afraid that “the third one could be fatal if he hit me right.” Yet despite being repeatedly pummeled by a man-mountain of preternatural strength — a veritable Hulk Hogan, if not an Incredible Hulk — Wilson’s face displayed no visible injuries.

The alleged blows were sufficient to justify lethal force, even against a fleeing, unarmed suspect, Wilson insists.

“My gun was already being presented as a deadly force option while he was hitting me in the face,” he told the jurors, later saying that hurling lead down a residential street was justified in order to “protect” the public from an unarmed suspect who had assaulted an armed police officer.

Michael Brown was apparently a shoplifter and a bully. If this was the case, he should have been compelled to make restitution to the victims. (Interestingly, although Wilson claimed to have seen stolen cigarillos in Brown’s hands during the “assault,” they were never found.) While there’s no clear evidence that Brown ever assaulted Wilson, it is indisputable from Wilson’s testimony that he was the one who escalated the encounter by threatening lethal force. This is problematic even under positivist legal precedents: Per Bad Elk vs. US, Brown — even as a criminal suspect — didn’t have a duty to die simply because Wilson had the means to kill him, and according Tennessee vs. Garner Wilson didn’t have the legal authority to kill Brown simply because he tried to evade arrest.

One needn’t consider Michael Brown to be a winsome innocent in order to believe that Wilson’s conduct in this incident was, at best, thoroughly suspect — and suitable for examination in a genuinely adversarial process of the kind Robert McCullouch was determined to avoid.

2:24 am on November 25, 2014
Email William Norman Grigg

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/darren-wilson-and-the-protocols-of-official-exoneration/

 

[otherone]

Kick a hornet's nest and stand at the source you will experience more stinging.

Nice metaphor.

I prefer "For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind".

 

[orenbus]

 

[orenbus]

Sunset in Ferguson, night falling...

 

[Anti Federalist]

Just the Fergusaon area?????

GET REAL!

-t

No, of course just not Ferguson, but they went and documented it well.

 

[presence]

Darren Wilson and the Protocols of Official Exoneration


http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/darren-wilson-and-the-protocols-of-official-exoneration/

JUST US

^^^ all anybody needed to see to indict

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm almost more afraid for our society if citizens do not riot against the cops over this situation. Although I do not believe MB is the best case for which to go to the mat.

I wouldn't riot over this one without more info. I'm genuinely not sure and I don't have enough info. So much race-baiting, and it seems likely to me that they are purposely highlighting a case where the cop at least conceivably could have been justified in order to desensitize the public to the REALLY obvious cases.

If both of the following are true:

1. MB was being arrested for robbery (an actual crime, not a victimless "crime")

AND

2. MB tried to steal the officer's gun

Than Wilson was justified.

Note: I said "if." I have heard that that was what happened. I am not certain that that's true. But IF those two things are true, than Wilson was probably justified. He should still be fired, seeing as he killed a man, and thus will be more likely to see himself as being at war from now on.

If anyone could show me some information that either #1 or #2 is false, let me know.

Until then, I'll stick to protesting the cases where the cops are actually wrong, that is to say, most of them.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Just skimmed some of the thread and realized that there's race baiting going on here. For shame.

My skepticism here has nothing to do with the fact that the victim is black. My skepticism comes from these things:

1. The alleged victim commited a real crime, theft and assault. Now, that doesn't automatically mean the shooting was justified, but it does mean that the police officer was justified in initiating the encounter. In a lot of these cases the original "crime" was victimless, and thus the police officers are automatically unjustified no matter what else happens. Because the police officer (seemingly, if there's information I don't know I'd be happy to see it) was justified in initiating the encounter, that would mean that he would also be justified in using whatever force necessary to repel Brown if Brown tried to take his gun.

2. Apparently Brown tried to take the officer's gun.

Brown's skin color has nothing to do with it. The fact that he first committed theft and then tried to take the officer's gun is.

Mind you:

Honestly, and no shit.

This shit didn't happen in a vacuum, I've posted numerous well sourced articles that prove that police harassment, brutality and shakedowns in the Ferguson area have been ongoing for years.

People have had fucking enough, and I don't blame them.

I just wish they'd trash more government buildings and cop cars instead of local businesses, but a riot does not discriminate.

But as you noted, the forces of the Empire make sure to stand guard over their citadels and fortresses.

The common mundane's property?

Fuck 'em.

I agree with this, totally. You guys know me well enough by now to know that I'm no fan of the cops. And even when it is a real crime, like theft, the punishment is still grossly disproproportinate. The system sucks and I don't see why anybody would want to be a part of that system. That said, this is still a case where the cop may be justified. "May be." Because I don't know, I'm hesitant to say too much. I'm much more angry over Kelly Thomas than I am over this, and skin color has nothing to do with it.

 

[otherone]

Just skimmed some of the thread and realized that there's race baiting going on here. For shame.

My skepticism here has nothing to do with the fact that the victim is black. My skepticism comes from these things:

You missed: NO INDICTMENT MEANS NO TRIAL.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You missed: NO INDICTMENT MEANS NO TRIAL.

Good point. I did miss that. He should go to trial even though I have a hard time imaginging him getting convicted.

 

[otherone]

Good point. I did miss that. He should go to trial even though I have a hard time imaginging him getting convicted.

The last thing TPTB want is for the system to be questioned. That's why they are happy to make this about race...and the useful idiots (here and elsewhere) lap it up.

 

[JK/SEA]

The last thing TPTB want is for the system to be questioned. That's why they are happy to make this about race...and the useful idiots (here and elsewhere) lap it up.

wait...you're saying race was not an issue here?....you positive on that?

 

[otherone]

wait...you're saying race was not an issue here?....you positive on that?

The execution, or the prosecutor's decision to not bring charges?

 

[JK/SEA]

The execution, or the prosecutor's decision to not bring charges?

no, in general. Are you saying the Brown case wasn't or isn't about race...at all?..