Ferguson Verdict

They expected a Grand Jury verdict Friday on whether to indict Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown the unarmed black teenager in Ferguson. The verdict was delayed -- possibly because the community was prepared to riot either way.

Seems to me there's no good resolution to this. The law will not matter. People want revenge.

What do you think?

The best idea would be if the police - all over America - admit they shoot far too many unarmed black men. And maybe promise to try and cut down on their habit. But that isn't going to happen any time soon.

I don't think there will be real riots, whatever the verdict, except maybe in and near Ferguson itself. Of course, the police will treat any protest as a riot, and make things much worse (they've been stocking up to be ready). But I don't get the sense that people are as worked up over this as they were over Rodney King.

Yep.  I think spending $172,000 on riot gear and stun grenades sends entirely the wrong message to Ferguson residents, who are 67% black.

Some of that money could have gone to community outreach.

Announcement of the verdict is expected tonight.

I see trouble coming every day.

Today's cops are a cowardly bunch of thugs. I hope someone there has the intelligence and decency to hold them in check if there are protests. (no, I am not holding my breath.)

Jobs for those who are of job age, eh droogy?

I don't understand your last post.

No indictment. Let the fun begin.

_Howard wrote:

I don't understand your last post.

It's a line from "A Clockwork Orange."  The former thugs in Alex's gang meet him again, after he's released from prison, but now they have become the police.  They beat him up legally.

_Howard wrote:

No indictment. Let the fun begin.

The community is angry.  Reason and constructive criticism don't seem like viable responses to a police department that buys riot gear and stun grenades and reinforces itself with the National Guard.

Did the police's military build up prevent the violence, or make it worse?

On Faux News this morning Juan Williams blames Al Sharpton for lack of leadership.  Cal Thomas blamed "liberal Democrats who prevent kids from escaping poverty." Wow, don't ask me to explain that....

Surprisingly (perhaps) Alan Combes asked why the grand jury decision was announced at 8:15 pm when the streets are dark and the situation is harder to control.  Were they TRYING to encourage rioting?  Juan Williams asked why the grand jury deliberations were secret instead of transparent.  He said this was a case of the establishment trying to protect the police officer instead of establishing what happened.  Pretty damning thoughts from the Faux News apologists.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43839_Is_St._Louis_County_Prosecutor_Robert_McCulloch_Helping_Raise_Money_for_Ofc._Darren_Wilson

It's odd that a prosecutor who wants to see an indictment doesn't get one. It's rather unheard of.

The evidence in the case -- which will be released today I think -- shows that the public narrative of what happened was wrong.  People won't remember that of course.

Which is why the SL handling of the case is such a mess.

Regardless of the inconsistency of some testimony, the punishment for stealing a handful of cigarillos should not be death. The cop's handling of the matter was idiotic and should be a violation of regulations. If it's not a violation, then the regulations should be changed. Cops should not be allowed to run around playing Billy BadAss.

Lawrence O'Donnell had a rather damning commentary last night.  Seems the one witness (Witness #10) who claimed to have seem Brown charging Wilson also said he was 100 yards away at the time.  300 feet away. a full city block away.  All the other witnesses, who were closer, saw no signs of aggression on Brown's part.  

Yet the one witness whose account was chosen to repeat at the press conference was witness #10.  The Grand Jury never heard the witness's earlier description of where he was in relation to Brown.

Salon is obviously somewhat biased, but on the other hand, when they are quoting experts, you have to bear the expertise in mind.

“A hallucination of your worst fears”

Patricia Williams wrote:

As in many of these trials, like the Trayvon Martin case and Jordan Davis, the public seems to feel that the victim is the person who needs to be prosecuted. And reading the transcript [in the Wilson case], it was so blatant.

One of the functions of a prosecutor is to prioritize, to make a case that there is reasonable cause. McCulloch didn’t do that. He chose to present a mess with no attempt to persuade. That’s what prosecutors are supposed to do, and he didn’t do that. He emptied several bales of hay and told the jury to go sort through it. Relevance and focus is absolutely what you need to create a case. He didn’t try to create a case.

If he had a strategy, it seemed to be more about acting like a defense attorney.

And because prosecutors so often use police as their witnesses, there is a tendency in many prosecutors — and you saw this really dominate here — to feel that the police are on the same side as the prosecution. While in fact, the prosecutor’s duty is to the people. That’s why the courts are styled as “the people” versus a particular defendant. It is not “the police” versus a particular defendant.

McCulloch’s duty is to the public space, to all the people of the state. Not the police. That distinction, of the prosecutor representing the public and not police interests, seems to have been erased. And that conflation seems to have driven this grand jury presentation.

Salon wrote:

Why was the sight of a knife-wielding woman so fearful to a shotgun-wielding policeman that he had to blow her to pieces as the only recourse, the only way to preserve his physical integrity? 

Darren Wilson used his fear of imminent attack by Michael Brown as his excuse for assassinating him with a headshot.

Is it time to take the lethal guns away from police, and give them non-lethal alternatives?

Williams has hit the nail right on the head. Public Prosecutors and District Attorneys who believe their job is to protect the police, and police who believe their job is to force citizens into toeing the line as the police see it have created a very dangerous area of our society. Maybe the old proclivity of calling the police "pigs" should be resurrected; they have never deserved the appellation more.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Darren Wilson used his fear of imminent attack by Michael Brown as his excuse for assassinating him with a headshot.

Is it time to take the lethal guns away from police, and give them non-lethal alternatives?

If Wilson was so terrified of an individual, then perhaps he didn't have the cojones to be on the force.

Yeah. We gave them non-lethal alternatives - stun guns - and they use them on six-year-old kids (and they're only non-lethal most of the time).

The cowardly bastards need to grow a pair. If they want to play Billy BadAss, they can join the fucking military.

_Howard wrote:

Williams has hit the nail right on the head. Public Prosecutors and District Attorneys who believe their job is to protect the police, and police who believe their job is to force citizens into toeing the line as the police see it have created a very dangerous area of our society. Maybe the old proclivity of calling the police "pigs" should be resurrected; they have never deserved the appellation more.

^That. Totally.

Some police are very nice -- the interactions I've had with my local force (a home invasion, a couple of car thefts) have all been positive.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Some police are very nice

To you. This is not an argument for keeping them armed, though.

I think even the Bobbies are armed now, aren't they? Didn't Great Britain finally give in?

BBC News wrote:

Tourists and visitors regularly express surprise at the absence of firearms from the waists of officers patrolling the streets.

But to most inhabitants of the UK - with the notable exception of Northern Ireland - it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns.

Unremarkable, that is, until unarmed officers like Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone are killed in the line of duty. There are always those who question why Britain is out of step with most of the rest of the world, with the exceptions of the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and a handful of other nations.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19641398

Issuing firearms is a lot more common than it used to be, but the beat cop still is not routinely carrying a gun.

Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom

Sunday five St Louis Rams players -- all black -- entered the stadium with arms raised in the "don't shoot" position, in solidarity with the citizens of Ferguson.

The St Louis police have asked the NFL to fine the players.

Assholes.

Even asshole SC judge Scalia says the Grand Jury was all wrong:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

NoCoPilot wrote:

Sunday five St Louis Rams players -- all black -- entered the stadium with arms raised in the "don't shoot" position, in solidarity with the citizens of Ferguson.

The St Louis police have asked the NFL to fine the players.

Assholes.

Even asshole SC judge Scalia says the Grand Jury was all wrong:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

I heard about that. So gunning down an unarmed man is ok, but coming out in solidarity to the family is punishable. Lets you know right up front what this is about.