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

[DimaMazin]

Your reaffirmation of my informed observations has been redundant all along.

 

The white people of the Ferguson area have been reinforcing the obvious in apparent obliviousness every time they say anything on the record here. That marks the center of the problem faced by anyone trying to "do something" about the racial politics of Ferguson in particular, the St Louis area in general, or God help us the US as a country.

 

After WWII the conquerers of Germany set about - deliberately and expensively - trying to root out and disable the psychiatric disorder underlying the Nazi political movement. The Germans had been taken over by a craziness, and beating them militarily did not restore them to sanity. This "deNazification" apparently did some good. The US after the Civil War was not in a position to do that in the Confederacy, more is the pity.

 

 

That depends on what is being argued against.

 

If assertions at odds with the simple known facts of the matter are being made, repetition of those facts is a gentle way of making a reasonable argument, no?

 

 

 

 

If as all the evidence indicates Wilson fired eleven shots at a wounded, fleeing, and finally surrendering person, the last of which came in the burst after a three second delay (count three, right?) and were the ones that killed the person, he has no right to a clear conscience.

 

If he panicked, if he lost control of his behavior under the stress of the situation, if his training was inadequate or his mental state overwhelmed or the like, we can forgive him in good conscience ourselves. Especially this if he shows self-awareness and remorse. But his own conscience? One would hope for better.

When policeman have no right to kill a criminal then he(she) should avoid a meeting with a criminal. Do you need such policeman?

Some people want to live in USA and make negative development. The things are incompatible now. But they want to have a right to make negative development.

[davidivad]

heck, i'm just waitng for them to declare martial law over riots, ebola, or financial disaster (gas prices seem odd, hope we don't pay later) and throw everyone in a detention center.

[DimaMazin]

 

Certainly regret the circumstances. Make any attempt at appeasement. Soldiers coming back from war are often WITHOUT a "clear conscience" in a similar kill or be killed situation. That is called PTSD. Ofcr Wilson comes across as a robocop, unfazed, without pity, and ready to kill more.

 

The solution is to recruit young black men onto the police force, and pay whatever it takes to make them WANT to serve their community. The police force should have the same ethnic proportions as the community.

Criminality firstly should have the same ethnic proportions. Robocop is better than criminal in police.

[Ten oz]

More people have been married to Kim Kardashian than have died during the "riots" in Ferguson. Not a single police officer has died or been serious injuried. Every week around the United States at sporting events there are drunken fights or other violent outburst that result in deaths and injuries. Some of what we are seeing in Ferguson is simply media sensationalism mixed with the uncomfortable feelings seeing police in miliarty grade equipment causes. It reminds me a bit of Occupy Wall Street. Some cities welcomed protesters and had no problems. Other cities chose to use gas and break protests up. In the later the media covered it as rioting and violence outburst.

[MigL]

Note that I'm not saying they don't have valid reasons, but a protestor's rights to protest, stop when they start infringing on my rights to conduct business and live free of fear.

I believe Voltaire said something to that effect.

 

Even if we consider Officer Wilson's behaviour criminal, I fail to see how more criminal behaviour solves the problem.

[jegerenbruker]

Searching the web for reactions to the ferguson riots in other countries led me to this:

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C_kppi-BMOY

 

I'm not saying I necessarily approve of this message - but this is how the world reacts.

[Willie71]

Note that I'm not saying they don't have valid reasons, but a protestor's rights to protest, stop when they start infringing on my rights to conduct business and live free of fear.

I believe Voltaire said something to that effect.

 

Even if we consider Officer Wilson's behaviour criminal, I fail to see how more criminal behaviour solves the problem.

 

Rioting is part of mob mentality, a separate principle from protesting, though a protest can turn into a mob.

[Ten oz]

Searching the web for reactions to the ferguson riots in other countries led me to this:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C_kppi-BMOY

I'm not saying I necessarily approve of this message - but this is how the world reacts.

This video just reminded me how unconscious of a thing stereotyping can be. When the video started I saw the kids, the sawg they were wearing, heard the rock music, and immediately assumed a specific type of message was about to follow. I was wrong. I had not deliberately stereotyped them yet I did. Whether on purpose with negegative intentions or by innocence mixed association the result is the same.

We are imperfect. Sometimes we profile, stereotype, judge, fear, and etc each other based of our prior expireinces rather than a person's behavior. As a knee jerk reaction sometime people refuse to acknowledge it. Since it is not deliberate the feeling often seems to be that it isn't wrong. If we could all be more honest about how we felt I think it would go a long way. This is not a condemnation of anyone in particular. Just a general comment. I see people on both side of this issue stomping there feet and behaving as if they don't judge people they don't know based of circumstantial information like clothing of hair style. We all do it to some extent.

[overtone]

Please tell me what assertions I made that are at odds with the simple known facts

That accepting Wilson's testimony suggests the shooting was inevitable and justified. The facts at odds with this begin with the number and timing of gunshots from Wilson's gun. I don't care what he says (weeks later) he was thinking or seeing, he began by shooting at the guy running away from him, and ended seven seconds later (including a 3 second pause) putting a bullet into the head of a guy several feet away from him and already shot at least five times.

 

Whatever that was, and my first guess is panic and overreaction from poor training and inherent racial stereotypification, it sure as hell wasn't inevitable.

 

Actually, merely the fact of Wilson's testimony - regardless of its content - suggests that the failure to indict him for anything was neither inevitable or justified. Grand jury hearings are not trials, and the suspect is normally not allowed in them to influence the jury - what was he even doing in the room, let alone giving four hours of unexamined and uncontested testimony under sympathetic and carefully coached questioning (no cross, no accusation, no pressure - from the prosecutor) and why did the prosecutor not even suggest a range of possible indictments? If this were a hearing to assess indicting a mobster for a public hit, and these circumstances obtained, you and most people would take them as indications of a fix, corruption. And you would be well supported in that presumption.

 

So what was the presumable fix, here?

 

 

 

 

Can you give some examples of the flagrant, obvious, in your face racism you saw during your short visit to the region?

 

Visits.

 

Dude, if you don't know what places like East St Louis and school district 189 look like to the casual passerby , if you don't know what it means when ordinary stranger to stranger lunch counter conversation includes offhand references to sundown towns and places where it's too dark to visit, if you think a five minute stroll down any business street in the black occupied zones of the Ferguson area isn't enough to see what's all around you, then "evidence" and "random samples of white people" are not going to help.

 

Racial bigotry at the Ferguson level is not some kind of subtle, hidden, off-screen, easily overlooked community embarrassment. It's structural. You can probably see it from an airplane, like the political dysfunctionality of Albania.

Edited December 2, 2014 by overtone

[zapatos]

The facts at odds with this begin with the number and timing of gunshots from Wilson's gun.

You are wrong. His testimony on the timing and gunshots from his gun are supported by the physical evidence.

 

I don't care what he says...

Yes, that is apparent.

 

...he began by shooting at the guy running away from him...

That is not supported by the physical evidence. Did you even look at it?

 

, and ended seven seconds later (including a 3 second pause) putting a bullet into the head of a guy several feet away from him and already shot at least five times.

I see you are back to repeating the known evidence without making an argument that would explain how it shows anyone was lying.

 

 

...carefully coached questioning...

Sigh... I guess it is too much to hope that you are going to supply any evidence for this assertion?

 

...and why did the prosecutor not even suggest a range of possible indictments?

And why do you continue to make false statements?

 

The grand jury could have indicted Wilson on one of five charges:

 

First-degree murder: Knowingly causing a death after deliberation; punishable by either life in prison or lethal injection.

Second-degree murder: Knowingly causing a death, or acting with the purpose of causing serious physical injury that ends up resulting in death; punishable by life in prison or a range of 10 to 30 years.

Voluntary manslaughter: Causing a death "under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause"; punishable by five to 15 years in prison.

First-degree involuntary manslaughter: Recklessly causing a death; punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Second-degree involuntary manslaughter: Acting with criminal negligence to cause a death; punishable by up to four years in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-decision-grand-jury-decides-not-to-charge-police-officer-darren-wilson-in-michael-brown/

 

Dude, if you don't know what places like East St Louis and school district 189 look like to the casual passerby ,

Dude, if you don't know that there is a difference between Ferguson and East St. Louis then you have no business commenting on this thread. Your assertions in question are about Ferguson. Ferguson is in Missouri. East St. Louis is in Illinois.

 

...if you don't know what it means when ordinary stranger to stranger lunch counter conversation includes offhand references to sundown towns and places where it's too dark to visit, if you think a five minute stroll down any business street in the black occupied zones of the Ferguson area isn't enough to see what's all around you, then "evidence" and "random samples of white people" are not going to help.

No, actually evidence is exactly what is going to help. It is your unsupported assertions that are not helping.

 

While it is quite clear that blacks continue to be treated less well than whites both in Missouri and the rest of the country, you cannot simply apply what has happened elsewhere to what has happened this time in Ferguson.

 

If you are going to condemn Wilson in this case it would serve you well to read up on the facts of the case.

 

Condemning Darren Wilson simply because he is a white officer, and other white officers have committed murder of blacks, is every bit as discriminatory as you are accusing those white police officers in Ferguson of being.

[overtone]

...he began by shooting at the guy running away from him...

That is not supported by the physical evidence.

Yes, it is. It's supported by recordings of the gunshots, which verify the timing of them and the duration of the event: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/02/acoustic-experts-detail-purported-ferguson-shooting/ It's possible the victim was not running, but walking - at any rate, from the first shot in the car (Wilson's claim) he got far enough away that even "charging" toward the officer (Wilson's testimony) did not get him all the way back in about three seconds (Wilson's claimed reason for the last four shots in the three seconds after the three second delay). Ergo, he was moving away during at least some of the first burst, and that helps explain why they mostly missed - harder shot, flustered shooter.

 

 

The facts at odds with this begin with the number and timing of gunshots from Wilson's gun.

You are wrong. His testimony on the timing and gunshots from his gun are supported by the physical evidence.

Which I am not arguing with - we were both accepting Wilson's account of his perceptions, for the sake of the argument. I don't believe the guy for a second, but it doesn't matter - he can't talk away the physical evidence.

 

One shot in the car, 11 shots in 7 seconds (10 picked up in the audio) with a 3 second gap between two bursts, last shot to the top of the head at a distance of several feet. As you pointed out, I am merely repeating public information you have no quarrel with.

 

 

 

 

Dude, if you don't know that there is a difference between Ferguson and East St. Louis then you have no business commenting on this thread. Your assertions in question are about Ferguson. Ferguson is in Missouri. East St. Louis is in Illinois.

 

Please. http://disween.com/ferguson-mo-us/east-saint-louis-il-us I've been there.

 

 

 

 

Condemning Darren Wilson simply because he is a white officer

 

Who showed no remorse for actions that in the best of lights revealed incompetent panic resulting in death, and in the worst overt murder with a racial basis.

 

And was coddled by the prosecutor who was supposed to be the arm of the law.

 

 

 

 

...and why did the prosecutor not even suggest a range of possible indictments?

And why do you continue to make false statements?

 

 

 

 

 

I've made no false statements. What are you confused about? The quote you appear to be responding to is a simple statement of circumstance: the prosecutor did not even follow standard procedure and put forward the possible indictments indicated under the law, instead he brought in the alleged perp and gave him four hours to sway the jury without cross examination and while guiding his testimony with leading questions. And the defense lawyer signed off on that - let Wilson answer questions from the prosecuting attorney in public, no fifth amendment, no protection. So arrangements had been made, as they say. And we know now why 7000 people from Ferguson signed a petition asking for the recusal or removal of that prosecutor (the community representative, the guy supposed to be on their side) from the case - he lived up to his reputation from past cases of racially loaded police overreach.

 

It's conventional wisdom that a decent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. This one could not get a a perp indicted for shooting an unarmed man multiple times in broad daylight on the public street.

Edited December 2, 2014 by overtone

[zapatos]

Yes, it is. It's supported by recordings of the gunshots, which verify the timing of them and the duration of the event:

Which of the shell casings in the attached picture would you guess were fired while Brown was fleeing, and how can you tell?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=4

 

It's possible the victim was not running, but walking - at any rate, from the first shot in the car (Wilson's claim) he got far enough away that even "charging" toward the officer (Wilson's testimony) did not get him all the way back in about three seconds (Wilson's claimed reason for the last four shots in the three seconds after the three second delay). Ergo, he was moving away during at least some of the first burst, and that helps explain why they mostly missed - harder shot, flustered shooter.

Given that Brown was approximately 150 feet from the car it is not surprising that when he headed back toward the car he only traveled about 25 feet during those last three seconds. See the attached image from where the furthest blood was found to where the body fell. Also note that the location of the shell casings (further away from the car than where the body fell) support Wilson's testimony that he was backing up and firing as Brown was approaching him.

 

Please. http://disween.com/ferguson-mo-us/east-saint-louis-il-us

For some reason I cannot open the link but I suppose it is telling us that the two are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 miles apart.

In which case, so what? Ladue is even closer to Ferguson than East St. Louis. Does that mean that Ladue is the same as Ferguson?

If you've been to both Ferguson and East St. Louis then it should be crystal clear to you that they are nothing like each other.

An interesting aside is that much of "Escape from New York" was shot in East St. Louis since it already looked post-apocalyptic.

 

I've been there.

Yes, several times. You've already said.

 

Who showed no remorse for actions that in the best of lights revealed incompetent panic resulting in death, and in the worst overt murder with a racial basis.

Your ability to ascertain a man's intentions and professional capability based on the absence of a particular emotion during a 30 minute interview three months after an event occurred is astounding.

Unfortunately the rest of us must rely on evidence.

 

 

I've made no false statements.

You said "the prosecutor {did} not even suggest a range of possible indictments".

Yet the prosecutor suggested a range of five different possible indictments.

How is your statement not false?

Edited December 2, 2014 by zapatos

[Willie71]

This was out and out corruption. There isn't even a hint at impartiality. The Wilson interview was rehearsed (I've read many court transcripts over my 20 year career, wnd this was one of the most rehearsed I've ever seen." I felt sick to my stomach looking at the forensic evidence, and how it was misrepresented, as it does not support Wilson without creative, highly improbable, or even impossible circumstances. At minimum, Wilson panicked, and unloaded his clip. Suggesting more would only be likely if Wilson worked in a corrupt department, or racist department where blacks were dehumanized. Oh wait, he did, but that component remains speculation.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Willie71

[zapatos]

This was out and out corruption. There isn't even a hint at impartiality. The Wilson interview was rehearsed (I've read many court transcripts over my 20 year career, wnd this was one of the most rehearsed I've ever seen." I felt sick to my stomach looking at the forensic evidence, and how it was misrepresented, as it does not support Wilson without creative, highly improbable, or even impossible circumstances. At minimum, Wilson panicked, and unloaded his clip. Suggesting more would only be likely if Wilson worked in a corrupt department, or racist department where blacks were dehumanized. Oh wait, he did, but that component remains speculation.

It is hard to believe this is a science site sometimes given all the unsupported assertions. If you've got evidence that you are right or that I am wrong, please provide it. If you have an argument to make, please do so. But enough with assertions like "This was out and out corruption" unless you are willing to support it. It's getting old.

[Airbrush]

Is there much of a difference in young male black and white cultures in Ferguson, or for that matter in any major city in the USA? I'm just wondering if the CULTURE of young black males is more "OUTdoors", as in "Let's party outdoors", and the culture of male white youths is more "INdoors", as in "Let's watch TV or play video games in my house", and for that reason male black youths come in contact with police more often than male white youths. Does anyone know?

 

I'm white and grew up in a majority Latino area of East LA. During my 20s I had a couple of different jobs in a black area of South LA and I commuted on bus to my job, including a walk of several blocks from the bus stop through what appeared to be a 100% black neighborhood. One thing I noticed was that some black people sat outside in their front yard socializing in the early morning. I never noticed that in white or Latino areas.

 

In 1977 I was working (for minimum wages) for a ceramics manufacturer in Vernon, near South LA, which looked like a totally black area. I waited at a bus stop every night to go home and never had a problem until one night a group of about a dozen black youths approached me to look me over suspiciously. One of them told the others "He's a blood" in a friendly tone of voice. I did not know what "blood" meant, I figured it meant we all have the same color of blood, so I thought they were friendly. Years later I learned that area was a "Bloods" area and the Bloods were at war with the Crips nearby. "You want to smoke some [pot]?" I nodded, to be friendly. He said "Let him light [up the joint]". He (the friendly guy) gave me the joint and asked "Goin' to a party?" I was scared and didn't know how to answer because I was on my way home. I was dressed like a production potter, which is what I was, wearing flip flops, shorts, and a dusty T-shirt. I did not look like I was dressed for a party. All their eyes were on me in a hard way. I started to walk away and they followed. I walked faster and they did also. Then I broke into a sprint. They ran after me a short distance then quit and just picked up rocks to throw at me. I ran like never before turning corners until they could not see me then I hid in some bushes for about an hour. Later I got to another bus stop far away and made it home ok.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

I suspect the culture is driven more by economics than by race. My kids hung out with both white and black kids and from what I oculd tell they all had common interests. If you can afford a car, you drive. If you can't, you walk. If you have a job, you work. If you are unemployed, you spend more time just hanging around. People with more money have more options to go out and do things. If you have little money you have few options.

 

I think it is poor people who come into contact with police the most. If you are not working and can't afford to be somewhere, you are likely to be socializing around your neighborhood, and my experience has been that if you are a young male, you don't want to do that at home.

[Airbrush]

Exactly good point about who possesses the wealth and employment or lack of it. The poor will always come in contact with police more often.

 

Whatever ethnic group is the minority in a neighborhood will tend to avoid public places out of fear of any confrontation. In Ferguson the whites are the minority, so most of those would try to stay off the streets, and thus less contact with police.

 

Do you think the stepfather of Michael Brown should be arrested for inciting violence by calling to the crowd "Burn this b#### down! Burn this b#### down!" He even called for the microphone. It looks terribly irresponsible to me.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

I don't think it would serve any good purpose to charge him. The people who rioted in Ferguson were going to do so whether he prompted them or not. I agree that it was terribly irresponsible and it tells us what kind of man he is, and had a riot started that would not have otherwise I'd probably feel differently. But since is was said in the heat of the moment and it probably didn't do much to incite the riot I'd be inclined to just let it go.

There is no real effort to arrest those who were seen looting stores and to me this is no worse. I'd be happier to see things calm down before anyone gets seriously hurt.

[Willie71]

It is hard to believe this is a science site sometimes given all the unsupported assertions. If you've got evidence that you are right or that I am wrong, please provide it. If you have an argument to make, please do so. But enough with assertions like "This was out and out corruption" unless you are willing to support it. It's getting old.

The forensic evidence does not support Wilson. Most of it was ambiguous. The testimony was rehearsed (Wilson's). The timeline for Brown to have been charging would have resulted in Wilson long tackled on the ground. The radio call for backup never happened. The radio mysteriously changed channels. The "injuries" to Wilson were great exaggerations. The majority of witnesses described a stunned, shocked, surrendering Brown. The testimony of the few witnesses that claimed charging were quite unbelievable, as the details don't make sense ( the testimony of the execution doesn't either.)

 

Oh, BTW, I worked in Forensiv Psychiatry for two decades, and am quite familiar with assessing believability, assessing memory issues, false memories, and the brain's stress response in terms of witness testimony.

 

The prosecutor actually instructed the jury they should not indict. The questioning was incredibly leading and sympathetic to Wilson. Having Wildon testify was quite out of the ordinary.

 

There's more, but it gets tiring typing the numerous flaws in the process.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Willie71

[overtone]

For some reason I cannot open the link but I suppose it is telling us that the two are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 miles apart.

About 11, to the centers of each. Wilson's home town of Crestwood is about 17 miles from Ferguson, much farther away than East St Louis - although both cities are in the Greater St Louis Metropolitan Area.

 

Like most of the police officers working in Ferguson, Wilson lives in a town more than 90% white, and with twice as many browns and yellows (each) as blacks.

 

 

In which case, so what?

They are in the same general area, the demographics of which are almost entirely structured by racial bigotry of the present and recent past; a fact of the entire region easily visible to the most casual of visitors.

 

If you've been to both Ferguson and East St. Louis then it should be crystal clear to you that they are nothing like each other.

They both suffer from the region's hardcore racial bigotry and associated problems, visible to anyone from any major commercial street corner in the region.

 

 

Which of the shell casings in the attached picture would you guess were fired while Brown was fleeing, and how can you tell?

What does the location of the shooter (by the audio evidence all shots were fired from within a meter of each other) have to do with victim fleeing? And why are you attempting to ask such irrelevant questions?

 

 

 

Given that Brown was approximately 150 feet from the car it is not surprising that when he headed back toward the car he only traveled about 25 feet during those last three seconds

 

So you agree that the physical evidence suggests Wilson initially fired on somebody moving away from him. How else would he have traveled 150 feet from the time of the first shot - in contact with the car, he claims - to the time of the first burst?

 

 

 

You said "the prosecutor {did} not even suggest a range of possible indictments".

Yet the prosecutor suggested a range of five different possible indictments.

 

 

The prosecutor suggested none of them. Read the transcript. They were handed to the jury as information, and the jurors were left to figure out for themselves what the prosecutor thought he could prove in court. That is very unusual, almost unique - I've never before heard of a grand jury hearing in which the prosecutor did not overtly request a specific indictment or range of possible indictments they were ready to take to court; that's their goal in a grand jury hearing, usually. This grand jury had heard several presentations already - they were approaching the end of their service - and in every single one of them the prosecutor had made a clear request for a specific indictment or choice of indictments: so they knew the drill, and the signal was clear, this time.

 

 

"Who showed no remorse for actions that in the best of lights revealed incompetent panic resulting in death, and in the worst overt murder with a racial basis.

Your ability to ascertain a man's intentions and professional capability based on the absence of a particular emotion during a 30 minute interview three months after an event occurred is astounding. "

 

 

Except of course I attempted nothing of the kind. I "ascertained" lack of remorse from the language and tone of the speaking officer - right or wrong, no better evidence is possible. I disparaged his training or competence or both based on his inaccurate unloading of a dozen rounds in seven seconds at an unarmed suspect in broad daylight, including a kill shot into the head of someone with at least five bullets in him already - evidence, again. I did not "ascertain" intention at all.

 

Unfortunately the rest of us must rely on evidence.

You'll have to pay some attention to it, if you want to rely on it. You've plenty to deal with, linked and observed by others, above.

Edited December 3, 2014 by overtone

[Airbrush]

I don't think it would serve any good purpose to charge him. The people who rioted in Ferguson were going to do so whether he prompted them or not. I agree that it was terribly irresponsible and it tells us what kind of man he is, and had a riot started that would not have otherwise I'd probably feel differently. But since is was said in the heat of the moment and it probably didn't do much to incite the riot I'd be inclined to just let it go.

There is no real effort to arrest those who were seen looting stores and to me this is no worse. I'd be happier to see things calm down before anyone gets seriously hurt.

 

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.

The forensic evidence does not support Wilson. Most of it was ambiguous. The testimony was rehearsed (Wilson's). The timeline for Brown to have been charging would have resulted in Wilson long tackled on the ground. The radio call for backup never happened. The radio mysteriously changed channels. The "injuries" to Wilson were great exaggerations. The majority of witnesses described a stunned, shocked, surrendering Brown. The testimony of the few witnesses that claimed charging were quite unbelievable, as the details don't make sense ( the testimony of the execution doesn't either.)

 

Oh, BTW, I worked in Forensiv Psychiatry for two decades, and am quite familiar with assessing believability, assessing memory issues, false memories, and the brain's stress response in terms of witness testimony.

 

The prosecutor actually instructed the jury they should not indict. The questioning was incredibly leading and sympathetic to Wilson. Having Wildon testify was quite out of the ordinary.

 

There's more, but it gets tiring typing the numerous flaws in the process.

 

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.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

The riots weren’t caused by this event, it was merely the hook; the riots were caused by a culmination of events and attitudes from both sides.

 

Given the available evidence, I would side with zapatos, he was probably innocent and trying to do his job (which, maybe, was affected by fear).

However I think it was handled badly (politically). In many cultures around the world officer Wilson would be expected to fall on his sword and

if he wouldn’t he’d be thrown onto it. Unfair maybe but necessary, the second round of riots would have been averted, some trust in the police

regained and a chance to avert future riots or worse. Then in time and in private officer Wilson could be suitably compensated.

 

Hitting the situation head on, like this, just shows a complete lack of understanding or care from those in charge.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

You have a first amendment right to do that, if that's all you are doing. If you cross the line into inciting violence or using "fighting words", though, all bets are off.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-arrested-yelling-swearing-cop.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-calvert/telling-the-police-to-first-amendment_b_5575198.html

[Airbrush]

Thanks for those interesting links:

 

"...the line between protected and unprotected speech can be thin. Those who, knowing the First Amendment’s protections, are tempted to antagonize police officers should think twice. Not only may the speech actually violate the law (a resisting arrest charge is among the possibilities), but an offended officer might misrepresent what the speaker said or find some technical violation to justify an arrest."

 

"Fighting words are one of the very [few] categories of unprotected speech in the United States, along with such things as obscenity, child pornography, incitement to violence and true threats.

"... fighting words are generally confined to personally abusive epithets -- think racial slurs, homophobic taunts, religious insults -- conveyed in face-to-face settings where the audience or target of the speech is likely to swing back. Imagine a baseball manager like the late Billy Martin yelling toe-to-toe at an umpire. But just like umpires are supposed to tolerate a certain amount of verbal abuse before giving the manager the heave-ho from the game, so too are police officers expected to stomach a tad more than the average person." Only a "tad" more?

 

Mr. Head's raging and repeating "Burn the b#### down!" looks like unprotected speech, "incitement to violence" not "fighting words" to me, whether or not anyone listening to him acted on his urging.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

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.

I know that there is a comprehensive investigation going on regarding the nights of rioting, and that the police are planning to talk to Brown's step-father soon. I hope they do pursue the rioters agressively but I don't have high hopes that much will come of it.

I think the step-father is different. First, I don't know if he can be charged with inciting a riot if no one who heard him say it actually rioted (although other laws may have been violated). And I think the police would be hard pressed to find someone who they can prove heard him say it and then went on to riot because of it.

The police and prosecutor have a great deal of flexibility in how they enforce laws. I just feel that given the overall situation, I would talk to the step-father, let him know the possible consequences of his actions, then quietly file away the paperwork.