Ferguson: Nothing says 'I care' like looting and burning local businesses.

[FSSL]

Yep! That's the one!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Unbelievable pictures in this article.  Honestly, if I were a business owner, I would collect the insurance and leave this town to rot and never come back. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850383/A-town-ravaged-anger-pictures-extent-damage-buildings-Ferguson.html

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

...there is no doubt michael browns actions led to his death.... and officer wilson may very well have been justified in killing him........ but those are questions that should have been addressed in a public trial....due process......grand jurys are only to determine if evidence exists that might warrant an indictment.... and the presence of conflicting eye witnesses is exactly that..... grand jurys are not intended to weigh the evidence but only determine if it exists....a consensus is not required for a decision like it is in a trial... merely a majority vote... ..and they generally come to their conclusions in a matter of hours at most..... not months.....

Actually... grand juries in special cases like this can take many months and up to three years to decide. That does not help your point in the least.

These facts demonstrate that due process was given:

1) A grand jury was established.
2) This jury had a CONSENSUS that there was no probable cause that a crime was committed. If your standard for a petit jury is a majority, then a 100% consensus should leave no doubt.

Due process. We know it is not the process you wish, but it was due process.

nancy grace agrees with me....... i just saw her on tv a few minutes ago.... she is an attorney and former prosecutor who has presented hundreds of cases to grand juries..... and she has never taken a stand against a police officer before..... and yet what she said about this is almost exactly what i say about it...... that it was a rigged process........ she also said the story the officer told doesn;t add up and the grand jury should have never taken as long as they did to make a decision.......

i would say the fact she is a former prosecutor and you are not even an attorney at all doesn;t help your points in the least....in fact i would say it actually helps mine... ...... but there is also something else........ there is another much more obvious fact here that doesn;t help or lend credibility to your points either..... and the tone of some of the arguments here in favor of wilson and what the prosecutors did has already demonstrated the more negative sides of that fact in a pretty ugly way......

Nancy grace aside, the preponderance of evidence and the testimony all point to the officer being justified in his actions...all of which has been made public. With the sensitivity of this case, if it weren't so, the prosecutor would be dead meat. Every news outlet on TV have had so called experts examine the evidence, and offer their opinions.

Do you believe that the officer killed him in cold blood?
What have you seen (that others missed) in the evidence or testimony that demands the officer be put thru a sham trial?

Now, the fact that there is no case for police brutality here doesn't negate the fact that police brutality can and does occur in other instances. But, this case has been examined under several microscopes and IF there were some damning smoking gun evidence it would have been trumpeted by the PC press.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!

 

[FSSL]

Good thing aleshanee isn't writing policy on police training.

Fact is... if other officers were involved in the shooting the situation would be no different. Although you would have 2 or 3 officers threatened wIth their lives now.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Grand jury documents rife with inconsistencies

Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was lying face-down when Officer Darren Wilson finished him off. Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy, or admitted that they didn't see the shooting at all.

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back.

WHAT?  "Witnesses" were just parroting what they read in the press?  Nah, who would do that? 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

 

[FSSL]

Pretty omniscient of you...

Are not criminal cases in Hawaii given a Grand Jury to determine if an indictment is to be made?

 

[qwerty]

Grand jury documents rife with inconsistencies

Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was lying face-down when Officer Darren Wilson finished him off. Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy, or admitted that they didn't see the shooting at all.

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back.

WHAT?  "Witnesses" were just parroting what they read in the press?  Nah, who would do that? 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

I am just about done reading everything....what a mess.  I would have lost my mind trying to keep these stories straight.  I am amazed at the number of people who refused to cooperate from the start; those who initially provided statements, then disappeared or refused to cooperate later; individuals that were in control of physical evidence of a crime, denied they had it, then when the detectives found out they did have it, the people refused to release it.  They ended up having to get a court order to compel it's release.  Flyers posted in the apartment complexes telling people not to cooperate with the FBI, the police or the Department of Justice....quite the adventure.  It's worth the time to read.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

...there is no doubt michael browns actions led to his death.... and officer wilson may very well have been justified in killing him........ but those are questions that should have been addressed in a public trial....due process......grand jurys are only to determine if evidence exists that might warrant an indictment.... and the presence of conflicting eye witnesses is exactly that..... grand jurys are not intended to weigh the evidence but only determine if it exists....a consensus is not required for a decision like it is in a trial... merely a majority vote... ..and they generally come to their conclusions in a matter of hours at most..... not months.....

Actually... grand juries in special cases like this can take many months and up to three years to decide. That does not help your point in the least.

These facts demonstrate that due process was given:

1) A grand jury was established.
2) This jury had a CONSENSUS that there was no probable cause that a crime was committed. If your standard for a petit jury is a majority, then a 100% consensus should leave no doubt.

Due process. We know it is not the process you wish, but it was due process.

nancy grace agrees with me....... i just saw her on tv a few minutes ago.... she is an attorney and former prosecutor who has presented hundreds of cases to grand juries..... and she has never taken a stand against a police officer before..... and yet what she said about this is almost exactly what i say about it...... that it was a rigged process........ she also said the story the officer told doesn;t add up and the grand jury should have never taken as long as they did to make a decision.......

i would say the fact she is a former prosecutor and you are not even an attorney at all doesn;t help your points in the least....in fact i would say it actually helps mine... ...... but there is also something else........ there is another much more obvious fact here that doesn;t help or lend credibility to your points either..... and the tone of some of the arguments here in favor of wilson and what the prosecutors did has already demonstrated the more negative sides of that fact in a pretty ugly way......

Nancy grace aside, the preponderance of evidence and the testimony all point to the officer being justified in his actions...all of which has been made public. With the sensitivity of this case, if it weren't so, the prosecutor would be dead meat. Every news outlet on TV have had so called experts examine the evidence, and offer their opinions.

Do you believe that the officer killed him in cold blood?
What have you seen (that others missed) in the evidence or testimony that demands the officer be put thru a sham trial?

Now, the fact that there is no case for police brutality here doesn't negate the fact that police brutality can and does occur in other instances. But, this case has been examined under several microscopes and IF there were some damning smoking gun evidence it would have been trumpeted by the PC press.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!

grand jurys don;t establish facts..... they deliver opinions........ and all of these things you are trying to claim are established facts is nothing more than your own opinions that they came to the right one....... and no matter how satisfied you and a few others here might be that justice was served the jury of public opinion is still out on this one... .....yet public opinion is not the jury it should have been subjected to either..........there is suspicion by many people across the country that wilson got out of his squad car with the intention of shooting brown.... and it was expressed by many of the eye witnesses too.... when i heard him tell his own story and saw the pictures of his face ....in light of the horror stories i remember reading earlier about his "serious" injuries.... i began have doubts about it too......it appears lies have been told on this case by both sides......  .. and that is not something that can be determined or decided by a grand jury...nor should it be expected to......... i believe the case should have gone to trial..........

but you can believe what ever you want....... you are certainly entitled to your opinions as well....... but don;t be surprised if this same kind of corrupted legal procedure gets used against you one day when the political shoe is on the other foot....... 

Grand jury's deliver opinions, indictments....based on THE FACTS.
Forensic evidence....facts.
Autopsy reports...facts.
Witness testimony...determined to be believable or not beliveable based, partially at least, on how they line up with the physical evidence. Forensic evidence and autopsy reports are facts.

Again, everyone is welcome to their opinions, but facts are facts.
And the facts overwhelmingly prove the officer used justifiable force.
And, that is a fact...based on the facts and not hysteria.

 

[FSSL]

just because there is a consensus among middle class white men....liberals and conservatives alike.... all agreeing with each other.... and laughing at each others crude racial jokes about it ... ...that still doesn;t make it a fact.........

Wow! No wonder aleshanee cannot see the facts for what they are.

 

[Ransom]

Grand jury documents rife with inconsistencies

Which is the AP's way of spinning the fact that the grand jury's witnesses were rife with inconsistencies.

Some witnesses spun their testimony to put Brown in the best possible light. Some saw inaccurately but genuinely believed they remembered it accurately. Still others testified more or less in accord with what actually went down.

Meanwhile, there was a body of forensic evidence in addition to the eyewitness testimony, and the witnesses that the grand jury determined were credible were the ones whose story was consistent with the forensic evidence.

This shouldn't have to be spun as "rife with inconsistencies." It happens all the time. It's a hallmark of conspiracy-theory thinking to latch onto the inconsistencies in an attempt to create doubt about the whole process.

Some people need to watch Rashomon and get a grip on human nature.

 

[Ransom]

and that is still nothing more than your opinion......

It's clear that no one knows how to tell the difference between fact and opinion anymore.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A good column by Ann Coulter.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2014/11/26/liberals-willing-to-fight-to-the-last-drop-of-black-blood-n1924469

That community testified in support of Officer Darren Wilson. About a half-dozen black witnesses supported Officer Wilson's version of what happened. One was a black woman, who saw the shooting from the Canfield Green apartments. Crying on the stand, she said, "I have a child and that could have been my son."

And yet, she confirmed all crucial parts of Wilson's account. She said "the child" (292-pound Big Mike) never had his hands up and the cop only fired when "the baby" was coming at him. "Why won't that boy stop?" she asked her husband.

I always want to know more about the heroic black witnesses. They are put in a position no white person will ever be in and do the right thing by telling the truth -- then go into hiding from "the community" being championed by goo-goo liberals.

 

[FSSL]

...you got chased and had to run from people in ferguson that saw you as something to be hated and despised...... how would you feel if you were not only completely surrounded and outnumbered by people who hated you like that.....

Or I had 3 daughters and they wanted to rob and possibly do worse.

I lived in metropolitan areas... Rockford, Pontiac and Flint.
I know racism when I see it. I know it from both directions. I reject it all.

Your continued excuses are ... well... racist.

 

[FSSL]

I am only able to go by the statements you are making. They are not consistent with a person who is judging the situation by facts alone.

Having a multicultural family does not eliminate racism. I also know this firsthand.

Your comment above that this is a middle class white male perspective is racist.

I will leave this discussion for tomorrow and beyond... have a happy thanksgiving.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I am only able to go by the statements you are making. They are not consistent with a person who is judging the situation by facts alone.

Having a multicultural family does not eliminate racism. I also know this firsthand.

Your comment above that this is a white male perspective is racist.

I will leave this discussion for tomorrow and beyond... have a happy thanksgiving.

You'd think the testimony of a half dozen black witnesses, some of whom lived right there would nullify any anti-white sentiment. 

 

[FSSL]

Lol!

 

[Ransom]

which is even more reason the evidence and witnesses in this case should have been subjected to cross examination in a proper trial. . . . but especially not in a place like ferguson where there is already a deep seated mistrust of the police and the authorities......

It's clear you don't see your own inconsistency. If the problem is a "deep seated mistrust" of the authorities, what makes you think that the outcome of a criminal trial would be any more trusted than the outcome of a grand jury?

As I said: this is conspiracy thinking. It's exactly the same as the mindset of JFK buffs and 9/11 truthers: "We need a new investigation, because the investigations that were already done don't agree with the conclusion that I have already drawn."

I don't remember how old you are, but perhaps you don't remember the outcome of the Rodney King trial in 1992 firsthand: the white cops who beat King were acquitted in a criminal trial, resulting in the L. A. riots. (It was, in fact, a subsequent grand jury that led to the indictment of the same cops, and the conviction of two of them, for violating King's civil rights.) When you're hell-bent on burning the city down based on your own foregone conclusion, it really doesn't matter what form of due process gives you the excuse.

 

[qwerty]

This thread is turning into a comedy of errors.....

So it goes to a jury trial and the cross examination of the evidence presented would be made by the attorney of the officer..... I could only imagine what those questions would be to exonerate his client..... "Thank you for doing my job", "Why are we even here?", "Do you validate for parking because we are out of here?"

I take it that the most valiant defenders have yet to read a single volume of the Grand Jury transcripts.

 

[qwerty]

but as amused as you are about it....... you have to at least give me credit for one thing........ you know there are other people here who feel the same way i do....... but none of them are speaking up........ they are keeping silent and letting me take all the heat...... they don;t want be seen as going against the fearless leader of the forum and incur his sarcastic wrath as i often do....... maybe a few people on that grand jury felt the same way about the prosecutor and his group?........... who knows?.......... ......[/font][/size][/color]

Um....no.

I think that a majority of people saw someone commit a robbery and an assault on video and are not the least bit surprised that he would end up as he did.  Those that read the evidence and witness statements will find that the neighborhood drug dealer (even described by the witnesses that supported him) met the result of many people that deal in that trade.  The biggest fear of most "speaking up" is the scapegoat that they must be racist or bigot (since we are just white men on the forum).  If this adult male was white, most would not have heard a thing about this incident.....so guess it is really white people that don't matter.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Grand jury's deliver opinions, indictments....based on THE FACTS.
Forensic evidence....facts.
Autopsy reports...facts.
Witness testimony...determined to be believable or not beliveable based, partially at least, on how they line up with the physical evidence. Forensic evidence and autopsy reports are facts.

Again, everyone is welcome to their opinions, but facts are facts.
And the facts overwhelmingly prove the officer used justifiable force.
And, that is a fact...based on the facts and not hysteria.

and that is still nothing more than your opinion......

just because there is a consensus among middle class white men....liberals and conservatives alike.... all agreeing with each other.... and laughing at each others crude racial jokes about it ... ...that still doesn;t make it a fact.........

autopsy and forensic reports as factual as they may be... do not prove darren wilson made the right decisions.... to say that everything he did was justifiable is still just an opinion...... an opinion that will has made him free to walk away.... that much is a fact..... but it;s still a fact of circumstance based on an opinion.........

but there is one fact which seems to be crystal clear..... and that is the fact darren wilson shows no remorse or regret about what happened...... that is an extremely abnormal response to events of this nature.... even if justified and even if they happened by accident....... there is something seriously wrong going on with that guy....... and that is a fact........

My opinion based on FACTS.

Forensic evidence isn't faked or tampered with by officer Wilson.
The autopsy wasn't performed by officer Wilson.
The witnesses who's testimony lined up with the hard evidence weren't prepped by officer Wilson.
They all point to officer Wilson's testimony being truthful.
His actions were justifiable, proper, legal....

Facts are terrible things when they disprove your preferred outcome.
Sorry, but you are just whistling past the graveyard in this instance.