Ferguson conflict - What is the problem, and how to solve it?

[swansont]

 

Seems to me that the forensic evidence does support Wilson.

 

Some does. Some doesn't.

 

There's testimony that Wilson said Brown ran 30-34 feet away from the car and then charged back towards him, and was 30 feet away when that happened. And he backpedalled at that point. Brown died 150 ft from the car.

 

There's also the lack of any physical marks on Wilson from the alleged altercation.

 

The issue here is whether these inconsistencies meet the threshold of probable cause to have a trial to ascertain the facts.

[Airbrush]

As I just edited my post above, there is no need to prove that his incitement to violence was followed by anyone. His tirade was a textbook example of an "incitement to violence" thus not protected free speech.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

I haven't been able to find that there is an "incitement to violence" law in Missouri. Here is someting I did find.

 

From what I can tell of Missouri law, the relevant statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 574.0505, forbids rioting as follows:

 

1. A person commits the crime of rioting if he knowingly assembles with six or more other persons and agrees with such persons to violate any of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States with force or violence, and thereafter, while still so assembled, does violate any of said laws with force or violence.

2. Rioting is a class A misdemeanor.

 

If this is the proper statute (and I dont claim detailed familiarity with all of Missouris criminal law), notice first that it forbids rioting, not inciting a riot. (Some other states have statutes forbidding inciting a riot, although the constitutionality of at least some of these statutes is debatable.) To be guilty of rioting, Head would have to agree with six (or more) persons to violate specific laws that is, agree to participate in a riot. It is not immediately clear what kind of agreement Head had with those who were listening to his remarks. Presumably prosecutors could argue that there was an implicit agreement to violate criminal laws, perhaps arson or other statutes, although this is not free from doubt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/03/should-michael-browns-stepfather-be-charged-with-inciting-a-riot-what-about-the-rioters/

[swansont]

As I just edited my post above, there is no need to prove that his incitement to violence was followed by anyone. His tirade was a textbook example of an "incitement to violence" thus not protected free speech.

Advocating violence falls short of inciting, though. Inciting needs "imminent lawless action"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

So this depends largely on the context of the speech. (to which I am currently ignorant; I haven't seen any video)

[Airbrush]

"...The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech UNLESS that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

 

To me it looks like Mr. Head's tirade was "directed to inciting" and, given the circumstances of a prevalence of arson and looting, was "likely to incite" imminent lawless action.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Airbrush

[MigL]

And that's why nobody considers psychiatry, forensic or otherwise, a science, Willie71.

[Willie71]

Don't you think that after a few months have passed, the police should use video evidence, guided by witnesses, to track down many of the looters and arsonists? There were very clear videos of the faces of many of those engaged in violent criminal activity. Also, is there not SOME law that Brown's stepfather broke? After some time has passed, he should be at least fined. If I were to approach a cop, in a very angry mood, and yell obscenities at the cop, I should expect to be arrested, taken to the police station, and charged with some kind of disorderly conduct, even if it results in only a fine or community service. And that is not even calling for violence.

 

 

Seems to me that the forensic evidence, location of all bullet casings, does support Wilson. Brown was NOT shot in the back, although several witnesses claimed that under oath. He may have thrown his hands up for a moment and said "Don't shoot" but evidence is that after that, he charged back at Wilson. Someone that is "stunned, shocked and surrendering" does not charge towards a cop. I agree with you that Wilson was treated gently by the prosecutors, and the police really screwed up big time in MANY ways processing this incident. Why not get finger prints from Wilson's gun, if Brown touched it? So I agree with most of what you are saying, but there WAS reasonable doubt about the criminality of Wilson's actions.

 

Certainly "the majority of witnesses described a stunned, shocked, surrendering Brown" but also anger and rage. You are cherry picking emotions for him to feel. I've been following this all day on CNN and never heard a number of your claims. So you suggest the grand jury was hand picked to ignore the majority of witnesses? That sounds absurd.

I've read the transcripts, and only three witnesses reported a charging Brown. I'm not saying witnesses were omitted, but the witnesses in majority did not support Wilson's testimony. Wilson, and two other witnesses, whose testimony did not present as an account, but as making a point claimed a charging Brown. What they described is highly physically improbable. The rest of the witnesses reported they saw Brown with his arms raised at shoulder height stumbling, trying to catch his balance, curling forward as one would see with a shot to the abdomen. Witness 14 presents the most credible sounding testimony. A few reported they weren't able to see, driving away, or ducking for cover. Edited December 3, 2014 by Willie71

[overtone]

Brown was NOT shot in the back, although several witnesses claimed that under oath.

The witnesses claimed he was shot at while his back was turned, moving away. They were not close enough (regardless of what they claimed) to see whether or not he was hit, and we know that at least five shots missed. So the forensic evidence does not contradict - and in other respects, such as timing and distance, supports - claims that Wilson fired at Brown while Brown was running away. So in that fully supported account, if he didn't shoot him in the back it would be because he missed.

 

 

 

He may have thrown his hands up for a moment and said "Don't shoot" but evidence is that after that, he charged back at Wilson. Someone that is "stunned, shocked and surrendering" does not charge towards a cop.

Neither does someone with five bullets in them, usually - although it has happened. Cross-examined trial testimony from the autopsy would be helpful in that.

 

We are also interested in whether, if Brown charged Wilson, he did so before or after the start of the second burst of gunfire - because if he was still being shot after raising his hands and surrendering, his decision to try to charge even with several bullets in him would be less mysterious. Again, carefully cross examined testimony and evidence would be useful in clarifying matters.

 

 

So I agree with most of what you are saying, but there WAS reasonable doubt about the criminality of Wilson's actions.

That's what trials determine. Where's the trial?

Edited December 3, 2014 by overtone

[Ten oz]

In a trail a person is innocent until proven guilty. A jury is suppose to be impartial, of peers, and fair. So why are so many people so ardently against a trail? If it helps clear the air, present the facts, and provides definitive resolution based on the evidence why not have one? Seems to me that many people don't want a trail because their faith is the system is not honest as expressed. Justice isn't always impartial, a jury is not always made up of peers, and outcomes aren't always fair. That concern seems to be common amongst both the protesters and the supporters of Wilson.

[overtone]

 

 

That concern seems to be common amongst both the protesters and the supporters of Wilson.

The only people who don't want to see a trial here are the police and political establishment of the Greater St Louis region, and Wilson's local supporters.

 

They are the system, for the most part. So they would be in a position to ensure that it operate fairly.

[Ten oz]

The only people who don't want to see a trial here are the police and political establishment of the Greater St Louis region, and Wilson's local supporters.

 

They are the system, for the most part. So they would be in a position to ensure that it operate fairly.

The common thread I was referring too was distrust in the system.

[overtone]

 

 

The common thread I was referring too was distrust in the system.

And that's true, sure - but the supporters of Wilson, the police and the prosecutor and the political establishment of the area, are "the system" involved. So we ask: what don't they trust, exactly?

 

Because they aren't looking real solid in the mental health department, right about now.

[swansont]

So you suggest the grand jury was hand picked to ignore the majority of witnesses? That sounds absurd.

 

Hand-picked? Probably not. But in a city where ~30% of the population is white, we see a grand jury with 9 white members and 3 black ones.

[Endy0816]

Jury was based on the county.

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29189.html

[zapatos]

The only people who don't want to see a trial here are the police and political establishment of the Greater St Louis region, and Wilson's local supporters.

Citation?

 

That seems so out of line with the poll I was able to locate.

 

Americans are evenly split on a recent grand jury decision not to indict the Ferguson, Mo. police officer who shot and killed unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, but answers varied along racial and partisan lines, according to a new poll.

 

The poll, conducted by the Washington Post, shows that 48% of American adults approved of a Missouri grand jurys decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson while 45% said they disapproved of it.

http://time.com/3613454/ferguson-poll-racial-partisan/

[overtone]

 

 

The only people who don't want to see a trial here are the police and political establishment of the Greater St Louis region, and Wilson's local supporters.

Citation?

That seems so out of line with the poll I was able to locate.

I'm sorry: the only informed or involved people in the area. God knows what polling Fox or CNN viewers nationally would turn up.

[zapatos]

So which category do I fall in?

[Ten oz]

And that's true, sure - but the supporters of Wilson, the police and the prosecutor and the political establishment of the area, are "the system" involved. So we ask: what don't they trust, exactly?

 

Because they aren't looking real solid in the mental health department, right about now.

With other recent examples out there like Eric Garner and Tamir Rice it seems that some people simply defend the police no matter what. Even when video evidence is available clearly showing behavior that contradicts both policy and written statements by the officers. I understand the motives of the officers, prosecutors, politicians, and etc involved to justify their policies and performance. That is just good old CYA. It is the motives of everyone else I wonder about. Most people I have encountered acknowledge that our legal system is not impartial. That a jury of your peers is merely a slogan unless a person is wealthy enough to match the prosecution dollar for dollar. Yet people sit by and allow our (U.S.) criminal system to imprison millions. People are willing to defend police who kill when they clearly had other options.

[DimaMazin]

People are willing to defend police who kill when they clearly had other options.

Do you think police has exceeded norm of law of probability for one option from all options ?

Edited December 5, 2014 by DimaMazin

[Airbrush]

Do you think police has exceeded norm of law of probability for one option from all options ?

 

Can you say this in other words? This does not make sense in English.

 

In the New York City case of police "exceeding norm of law" by killing that huge guy with the chokehold, that guy could not even put his hands behind his back. So the police should have lasoed him, like a cowboy in the rodeo, using a restraint that wraps around the suspect.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Airbrush

[swansont]

With other recent examples out there like Eric Garner and Tamir Rice it seems that some people simply defend the police no matter what. Even when video evidence is available clearly showing behavior that contradicts both policy and written statements by the officers. I understand the motives of the officers, prosecutors, politicians, and etc involved to justify their policies and performance. That is just good old CYA. It is the motives of everyone else I wonder about. Most people I have encountered acknowledge that our legal system is not impartial. That a jury of your peers is merely a slogan unless a person is wealthy enough to match the prosecution dollar for dollar. Yet people sit by and allow our (U.S.) criminal system to imprison millions. People are willing to defend police who kill when they clearly had other options.

 

Possibilities (other than racial bias) include juror bias, prosecutor bias and case strength. Interesting statistic: in 80 out of 81 Dallas cases between 2008 and 2012 involving police shootings, the grand jury failed to indict. Similar elsewhere, I suspect.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

[Unity+]

The shooting was magnified by the stupid explanation that Ofc Wilson gave. He had a long time to rehearse this long-awaited statement and he could not fit a tiny phrase of sympathy for Brown's family. He could easily have said that he felt he had no choice but to use deadly force against Brown, but he WISHED that he didn't have to. He could have said "I'm sorry it happened the way it did, and I hope his family and friends could forgive me." But like the huge idiot that Ofc Wilson is, he had to sound totally indifferent, satisfied he killed a raging beast, he did not care in the least, and therefore he will be the target in a civil case, and will face death threats for the rest of his life. What a fool. His career as a cop on the beat is terminated by putting his foot in his mouth at a most critical moment.

I dont see how politics has to beccomme a part of the justice system?

[iNow]

I dont see how politics has to beccomme a part of the justice system?

Ever heard of Justice Antonin Scalia?

[mississippichem]

 

Interesting statistic: in 80 out of 81 Dallas cases between 2008 and 2012 involving police shootings, the grand jury failed to indict. Similar elsewhere, I suspect.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

That is quite a striking statistic. What fraction of those cases would one expect to result in an indictment? I have no clue nor do I have a clue how one could even in theory arrive at such a number.

[Unity+]

Ever heard of Justice Antonin Scalia?

I was referring to his statement:

 

 

 

He had a long time to rehearse this long-awaited statement and he could not fit a tiny phrase of sympathy for Brown's family.

Whether he had any sympathies is not relevant to whether his information was accurate or not and whether he was innocent. Having to express sympathy in order to be considered innocent is more political correctness than anything.