Community› The Bump Month Clubs› March 2015 Moms
March 2015 Moms
New Discussion

Ferguson *NBR*

ngolimentongolimento member
in March 2015 Moms
I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion on the recent grand jury decision regarding Michael Brown's death. We have a lot of smart ladies on here, and I think it's important to openly discuss events like this (civilly of course).

I personally think it is the absolute stupidest decision possible, regardless of which side of the fence you fall on. The public very clearly isn't going to be satisfied with anything other than a trial, where all the evidence is brought to light.

Opinions? Thoughts?
BabyFetus Ticker
Report Reply to Post
«1

Re: Ferguson *NBR*

  • Loading the player...
  • ngolimentongolimento member
    Yes, indictments are unbelievably easy in normal circumstances. The bar for deciding on a trial is set ridiculously low. The very fact that there is so much conflicting evidence means that a trial is absolutely called for. This is extremely unusual for a Grand Jury to decide, and makes the whole mess stink of coverup.

    It's exactly as Etiolle said. Due process of the law is being denied. If our system allows for some asshole who shot up a theater of people more trial and process time than a murky situation that clearly needs more analysis, then wth is going on?
    BabyFetus Ticker
    Report Reply
  • ngolimentongolimento member
    Also, people are not torching their own community, just to clarify. Most of the vandals are from out of town.
    BabyFetus Ticker
    Report Reply
  • MrsPope1770MrsPope1770 member
    Peledreamsofrain said:

    Also, people are not torching their own community, just to clarify. Most of the vandals are from out of town.

    In August, they were mostly from out of town. It has been verified this morning that the majority of the arrests made last night were locals.
    Report Reply
  • BiscottoBiscotto member
    All I have to say is STL is my hometown. I went to University near Ferguson and the rioting makes me so unbelievably sad for my city. Nothing justifies torching a city to the point that planes can't land and rows of businesses are burning, it's not going to change anything.
    Report Reply
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • MissyCeeMissyCee member
    I absolutely believe the right decision was made. Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his gun, evidence proves this. The evidence also shows that Brown was approaching the office when he was shot the subsequent times. The officer defended himself against a criminal who IMO had every intention of causing serious harm or killing him. Also, if Brown had been a white man or Wilson had been black, this would not even be a story. People used their fake outrage to justify wild criminal behavior, like looting. Black people don't want to be stereotyped as thugs and yet they go about acting like thugs, it's just ridiculous.

    image



    Report Reply
  • lynndavid6912lynndavid6912 member
    Agreed with @earthian‌ . I'm ignoring the rest of the post because honestly I haven't kept up with all the details of the news story, but the bolded is not okay. Not by a longshot.
    image
    For Suzy and our M15 Loss Moms
    Report Reply
  • ClobertClobert member
    I don't think there was much hope that they would get an indictment, especially after the governor decided not to recuse the prosecutor.  He was way to close with the local police and the issues are systemic.  
    I think there is still hope for the federal investigations.  It doesn't appear that there will be any justice for Michael Brown, but maybe there can be some progress in their community and some real systemic changes. 

    Report Reply
  • skatergrlskatergrl member
    meladoriestar said:
    I am mixed as there is a lot of conflicting information.  From what I've read however, I believe the prosecutor was biased and provided evidence to the grand jury in a way so that there would be no indictment and that he wouldn't be to blame.  I believe excessive force was used considering the victim was unarmed, shot at multiple times, and it all went down in less than 2 minutes.  I also think the prosecutor did an injustice to the community to hold off announcing the grand jury's decision until nightfall last night.   He knew people would riot, he could have done it earlier so that the police and firefighters would be able to see the perpetrators and such.  This whole process has been nothing but a failure from the time Michael was shot.
    This was my thought as well.
    I had the same thoughts. I did hear one reporter today mention that it was done later to make sure kids were home from school and people were home from work since they expected some trouble which I get but I still thought it was a little late.
    Report Reply
  • MissyCeeMissyCee member
    salmphil said:
    class="Quote" rel="earthian">
    I absolutely believe the right decision was made. Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his gun, evidence proves this. The evidence also shows that Brown was approaching the office when he was shot the subsequent times. The officer defended himself against a criminal who IMO had every intention of causing serious harm or killing him. Also, if Brown had been a white man or Wilson had been black, this would not even be a story. People used their fake outrage to justify wild criminal behavior, like looting. Black people don't want to be stereotyped as thugs and yet they go about acting like thugs, it's just ridiculous.
    I'm not ok with the bolded.
    ((quote box fail)) Umm yeah. Debating law & order is one one thing, blatant racism is another, and completely contrary to the purpose OP had for this thread. This crap is exactly what deters us from worthwhile discussion about this issue. Jesus. Am I on Facebook? In other news, what do we think the federal investigation will bring? Any more clarity?


    Umm, have you been watching what the people in Ferguson (and some other areas) are doing? Breaking into businesses and looting, lighting things on fire, trying to turn over vehicles, shooting guns in the air, and on and on. I'm sorry, is that not considered thug behavior where you are from?

    image



    Report Reply
  • MissyCeeMissyCee member
    earthian said:
    salmphil said:
    class="Quote" rel="earthian">
    I absolutely believe the right decision was made. Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his gun, evidence proves this. The evidence also shows that Brown was approaching the office when he was shot the subsequent times. The officer defended himself against a criminal who IMO had every intention of causing serious harm or killing him. Also, if Brown had been a white man or Wilson had been black, this would not even be a story. People used their fake outrage to justify wild criminal behavior, like looting. Black people don't want to be stereotyped as thugs and yet they go about acting like thugs, it's just ridiculous.
    I'm not ok with the bolded.
    ((quote box fail)) Umm yeah. Debating law & order is one one thing, blatant racism is another, and completely contrary to the purpose OP had for this thread. This crap is exactly what deters us from worthwhile discussion about this issue. Jesus. Am I on Facebook? In other news, what do we think the federal investigation will bring? Any more clarity?


    Umm, have you been watching what the people in Ferguson (and some other areas) are doing? Breaking into businesses and looting, lighting things on fire, trying to turn over vehicles, shooting guns in the air, and on and on. I'm sorry, is that not considered thug behavior where you are from?
    ----quote fail ---- It was your generalization of black people that was offensive. I feel like that is pretty clear...
    Ok, well to clear it up for those who may have misunderstood, I was referring to the black people rioting in response to this situation, not ALL black people. I can see why someone would be upset if they thought that's what I was saying, but it was not.

    On a side note, not just black people can act like thugs, I know plenty of white people who act like thugs too. Again, to reiterate, I was referring specifically to the people rioting.

    image



    Report Reply
  • goofygoffgoofygoff member
    edited November 2014
    What's the old quote?  "A grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."?  Yeah.  That's how I feel about that whole process and the prosecutor, in particular.

    Also, as someone who's never been subjected to systemic racism, and comes from a place of privilege, I don't feel comfortable condemning the actions of anyone last night.  

    ETA:  Just leaving this here.

    image


    image
    For SuzyQ and all March 15 loss moms
    Report Reply
  • lawsonellislawsonellis member
    I don't know what to think about the decision making process here, in that, I think it was at least idiotic of them to wait to announce the outcome of the decision until night-time without an imposed curfew. As to whether it was the right decision, I think I'm leaning towards feeling like there was enough to indict and that the burden of proof should've been onthe prosecution during a due process trial.

    However to sum up my major feeling, I will quote my friend Martiza, as she put it better than I ever could:

    "I won't change anyone's mind or heart about ‪#‎ferguson‬ in a FB status.

    Instead, let me offer support and love where it's needed and welcome. Because I know that ‪#‎blacklivesmatter‬ and ‪#‎blackboysmatter‬. And I'll know it with you, whatever that grand jury says."

    Report Reply
  • lawsonellislawsonellis member
    @chunkymonkeylvr I'm not saying that the Grand Jury decision one way or another implies anything about black lives (or any life and/or the sanctity thereof) or black boys.

    What I'm trying to convey (albeit poorly. So tired today.) is that regardless of what decisions were made here, there is an inescapable spotlight being thrust on to matters of race, and matters of appropriate vs excessive violence, and matters of authority and where the lines between protection and abuse is drawn. 

    I know many people in any community (black, white, purple) see this as injustice for the black victim, and that the fact that they didn't even indict shows that the GJ doesn't value a black life as much as they would had it been a white life. I don't know if I agree with that, but I DO know that I believe in the sanctity of all life- and all I want to do is offer support for both parties here (the side of the victim, and the side of the law enforcement having to make these horrible choices every day).

    To me, life is a life. There is no color involved. 

    Did that (long-winded) explanation clarify?
    Report Reply
  • MissyCeeMissyCee member
    @chunkymonkeylvr Yea, the only thing I could apologize for is poor wording. I can understand how my original post could have been viewed as racist so then I made it clear that I was not talking about ALL black people, just specifically the rioters. I can see that no matter what I say many ppl are going to interpret my words how they want, so really there's no point adding anything further.

    image



    Report Reply
  • janda426janda426 member
    People riot after football games. I don't think it takes much to incite criminals to commit criminal acts. Let's not place the blame for their actions on anyone but themselves. If his own family isn't out rioting, there is no amount of emotional distress from these circumstances that these people are under to act this way. Some people really just do enjoy the attention and want to act like animals.
    Report Reply
  • ngolimentongolimento member
    Chunkymonkeylvr said:

    Peledreamsofrain said:

    Sorry, I've been flooded with work.

    As for all the other people on this thread (the ones making educated comments here without falling back on racism):

    I think it is very psychologically telling that people are willing to rip their community down over the issue. I feel it's a reflection on how disenfranchised and oppressed they feel. Most wouldn't resort to such measures unless they felt it was worthless and not even thiers to begin with. They aren't doing this because of their race. They are people, And people don't do extreme stuff like this unless they are pushed too far.

    I am not a psychologist or anything close, but believe for the most part this gives an out to any kind of destruction. I would see it more of a lack of empathy towards anyone else (shop owners) and a "do what I want" attitude that has been rampant since the 80's . Do what makes you feel good forget everyone else.

    .

    I agree that there's no excuse, but I don't agree that this is a generation thing. People have been rioting since the dawn on time. What I was speculating on is not "what would it take to make a criminal riot" but rather what would make your average law-abiding, normal citizen feel so frustrated and unheard that they are willing to go to this length. It's the human condition to do this, history supports it over and over ad nauseum. It's extremely easy to just dismiss it as "oh criminals/millenials/animals/thugs. I would never do that". The reality is much much different.
    BabyFetus Ticker
    Report Reply
  • mandi195mandi195 member
    Without taking a side on this, I just wanted to bring up the point that police officers are not trained to shoot to injure; they are trained to shoot to stop the perceived threat. The wording is specific, perceived threat. Also, their job is to protect themselves and the rest of the members of the community against a perceived threat. 
    I have not been following this case closely, as it is a hot button issue in my area; so I cannot make an informed statement to whether or not the officer in this situation was justified in his actions or not. I have just read a lot of "why didn't he tazer him" or "why didn't he shoot him in the leg instead" and the like, and wanted to share the knowledge I have about police training on these issues (My aunt used to be a trainer at a police academy and informed me of these things when I brought up the argument of "why didn't the cop just shoot him in the knee or something" about an issue years ago)
    Report Reply
  • MrsPope1770MrsPope1770 member
    mandi195 said:

    Without taking a side on this, I just wanted to bring up the point that police officers are not trained to shoot to injure; they are trained to shoot to stop the perceived threat. The wording is specific, perceived threat. Also, their job is to protect themselves and the rest of the members of the community against a perceived threat. 

    I have not been following this case closely, as it is a hot button issue in my area; so I cannot make an informed statement to whether or not the officer in this situation was justified in his actions or not. I have just read a lot of "why didn't he tazer him" or "why didn't he shoot him in the leg instead" and the like, and wanted to share the knowledge I have about police training on these issues (My aunt used to be a trainer at a police academy and informed me of these things when I brought up the argument of "why didn't the cop just shoot him in the knee or something" about an issue years ago)
    You're right. They are trained to shoot at the center most mass. I think that the need for required lapel cameras is so real---for the protection of the civilians AND the officers.

    Report Reply
  • MrsPope1770MrsPope1770 member
    AleWife said:

    Chunkymonkeylvr said:

    @etoille said:

    Chunkymonkeylvr said:

    @MissyCee you just need to apologize and move on and not try to justify that one statement you said. Generalized an entire race of people is not cool, especially based off 100 people. Just stop.

    @etollie I have to disagree with you on one point you made, "Whole thing was botched from the beginning and if the guy was innocent he should have had nothing to fear from a trial.  Let a jury weight the facts."

    The officer doesn't have to prove his innocence, he is innocent until proven guilty and shouldn't feel the need to go to trial because he has nothing to prove\hide. Just as I would not let a cop just search my car even though I have nothing to hide. These are my rights, just like the officer has rights.


    Other than that I am shocked to say I really do agree with you. I am surprised an indictment was decided, very different than a verdict. I do believe that the officer did the best he could in that situation, but honestly I wasn't there. I am glad that the evidence will be released, which is not very common in grand juries, but some it will not matter. They have convicted a cop based off of false information.
    With the federal investigation I wonder what else will come to light.

    I do wish people in general would condemned the actions of Michael Brown. It is not okay to rob a store and use physical intimidation. It is not okay to physically assult anyone.

    I do wish that the discord that is truly found between police officers and mostly black communities can be resolved, or at least a true conversation can come from this.

    You are actually not correct. He does have to prove an affirmative defense. Justification of force used as not excessive is an affirmative defense.


    Sorry duder.

    I do dearly wish that the victim had the benefit of being given the opportunity you are advocating his killer should get; when ironically his killer was far less entitled, constitutionally speaking.

    Edit - more on affirmative defenses for those who aren't versed in legal procedure -

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

    Obviously these are only asserted where there is a trial; there is no defense in a grand jury proceeding. But the point is where its a foregone conclusion, as the prosecutor stated in thus case it is, that the victim was killed by the officer, the officer must then assert an affirmative defense if he wishes to use the logic that deadly force was justified and when an affirmative defense is deployed the burden of proof shifts.

    The more you know ;)
    Ain't no way in hell am I getting in a legal debate with you lol.


    Eta: but isn't the purpose of the grand jury to see if there is reason to believe that he did act unjust causing the need for a trial? I know it isn't for guilt or innocence. And with the evidence coming out I am interested in seeing if both sides can have a humble conversation about the facts.
    It's my understanding that - at least with regard to federal statistics - it is rare for a grand jury to return with no indictment.
    You're right. This is because generally speaking, a prosecutor isn't going to give a case to a grand jury if he/she doesn't think there is a plausible case.

    I'm curious as to why it is being considered wrong for the case to have gone to a grand jury? The murder trial I served on this summer was a result of a grand jury indictment. Just about every high profile murder trial I have ever followed came as a result of a grand jury indictment. How is that not upholding the Constitution, @etoille? I genuinely want to know where that is coming from because I had no idea that a grand jury wasn't the typical course of events. The prosecutor presents his/her evidence in addition to the requirement of presenting exculpatory evidence, and then the grand jury makes the decision as to whether there is a case. How was this unlawful? Why should Darren Wilson not get the normal course of events? Why should his case be handled differently?

    I genuinely don't have a side on this yet.
    Report Reply
  • MrsPope1770MrsPope1770 member
    AleWife said:

    MrsPope1770 said:

    AleWife said:

    Chunkymonkeylvr said:

    @etoille said:

    Chunkymonkeylvr said:

    @MissyCee you just need to apologize and move on and not try to justify that one statement you said. Generalized an entire race of people is not cool, especially based off 100 people. Just stop.

    @etollie I have to disagree with you on one point you made, "Whole thing was botched from the beginning and if the guy was innocent he should have had nothing to fear from a trial.  Let a jury weight the facts."

    The officer doesn't have to prove his innocence, he is innocent until proven guilty and shouldn't feel the need to go to trial because he has nothing to prove\hide. Just as I would not let a cop just search my car even though I have nothing to hide. These are my rights, just like the officer has rights.


    Other than that I am shocked to say I really do agree with you. I am surprised an indictment was decided, very different than a verdict. I do believe that the officer did the best he could in that situation, but honestly I wasn't there. I am glad that the evidence will be released, which is not very common in grand juries, but some it will not matter. They have convicted a cop based off of false information.
    With the federal investigation I wonder what else will come to light.

    I do wish people in general would condemned the actions of Michael Brown. It is not okay to rob a store and use physical intimidation. It is not okay to physically assult anyone.

    I do wish that the discord that is truly found between police officers and mostly black communities can be resolved, or at least a true conversation can come from this.

    You are actually not correct. He does have to prove an affirmative defense. Justification of force used as not excessive is an affirmative defense.


    Sorry duder.

    I do dearly wish that the victim had the benefit of being given the opportunity you are advocating his killer should get; when ironically his killer was far less entitled, constitutionally speaking.

    Edit - more on affirmative defenses for those who aren't versed in legal procedure -

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

    Obviously these are only asserted where there is a trial; there is no defense in a grand jury proceeding. But the point is where its a foregone conclusion, as the prosecutor stated in thus case it is, that the victim was killed by the officer, the officer must then assert an affirmative defense if he wishes to use the logic that deadly force was justified and when an affirmative defense is deployed the burden of proof shifts.

    The more you know ;)
    Ain't no way in hell am I getting in a legal debate with you lol.


    Eta: but isn't the purpose of the grand jury to see if there is reason to believe that he did act unjust causing the need for a trial? I know it isn't for guilt or innocence. And with the evidence coming out I am interested in seeing if both sides can have a humble conversation about the facts.
    It's my understanding that - at least with regard to federal statistics - it is rare for a grand jury to return with no indictment.
    You're right. This is because generally speaking, a prosecutor isn't going to give a case to a grand jury if he/she doesn't think there is a plausible case.

    I'm curious as to why it is being considered wrong for the case to have gone to a grand jury? The murder trial I served on this summer was a result of a grand jury indictment. Just about every high profile murder trial I have ever followed came as a result of a grand jury indictment. How is that not upholding the Constitution, @etoille? I genuinely want to know where that is coming from because I had no idea that a grand jury wasn't the typical course of events. The prosecutor presents his/her evidence in addition to the requirement of presenting exculpatory evidence, and then the grand jury makes the decision as to whether there is a case. How was this unlawful? Why should Darren Wilson not get the normal course of events? Why should his case be handled differently?

    I genuinely don't have a side on this yet.
    And to be clear, I mentioned that as another reason for me to think the process was suspect.
    I understood exactly why you said it. So is it now unacceptable for a grand jury NOT to indict? What, then, is the purpose of having a GJ if we are going to be suspicious of them for doing what they were charged to do?
    Report Reply
  • MrsPope1770MrsPope1770 member
    kadeelou said:


    I absolutely believe the right decision was made. Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his gun, evidence proves this. The evidence also shows that Brown was approaching the office when he was shot the subsequent times. The officer defended himself against a criminal who IMO had every intention of causing serious harm or killing him. Also, if Brown had been a white man or Wilson had been black, this would not even be a story. People used their fake outrage to justify wild criminal behavior, like looting. Black people don't want to be stereotyped as thugs and yet they go about acting like thugs, it's just ridiculous.
    Hmmm, guess you read different evidence than I did. Brown attacked the officer, but it is only the officers statement that Brown tried to take his gun. Also, Brown was facing the officer, but from everything I read there are only conflicting statements as to wether he was "approaching" the officer. I'm not sure why you would run away from a cop shooting at you, and then just decide to turn around and run back toward the "threat". Would you care to cite your sources for the evidence you found?

    Chunkymonkeylvr said:

     I do wish people in general would condemned the actions of Michael Brown. It is not okay to rob a store and use physical intimidation. It is not okay to physically assult anyone. 

    I agree that what he did prior to the incident was wrong, but when did the punishment become death? Sadly I feel that we have become so scared of "criminals" that we have justified cops shooting first and asking questions later. And we say things like "well he was a criminal", but he was also a human being and we really need to find a way to handle situations like this better. He was unarmed, and had run away from the officer. In 90 seconds he went from walking down the street to laying dead in the street. And honestly the fact that they left his body lying there uncovered for hours just shows that they had no respect for his life, in my opinion.

    Edit: trying to fix quote boxes and format.


    Literally at this point if you say that he was running away from the policeman then you are ignorant of the facts. It has been clearly shown from autopsy that he wasn't running away. There is physical evidence that he assaulted the officer in the vehicle as well. The question isn't whether Brown was aggressive any longer--it is a question of whether or not the officer used excessive force.
    Report Reply
  • janda426janda426 member
    Chunkymonkeylvr said:

    @ kadeelou never said or even suggested that death was the right answer. I am just shocked that I am seeing and hearing, in general, poor KID as if he had no wrong doing in the situation, either of them that went down.
    He was 18, and in my opinion an asshole from the video of him and the store clerk. It doesn't mean he deserved to die, not at all, but it doesn't change that his actions led for him to be in the scenario that took his life.

    My daughter and I watched some of the news together and the lesson I wanted her to learn from this tragedy is stay out of trouble, it is a slippery slope. Do your best to be a good person and citizen and do your best to follow the law, and you should never be faced in this situation.

    To the last part:

    You know I keep hearing people say (about white people in general) that we should be happy we'll never have to worry about this happening to "our sons" or any of our loved ones. But I'm like, huh, that's funny.. Cause I'm pretty sure that ANYONE who follows the law, stays off the streets and doesn't look for trouble probably won't have this issue. Like there's never been a dumb ass white guy that had to be shot by a cop. I've heard so many segregating and racist statements from black people on social media over this it's made my jaw drop. Like wow cool, didn't know you felt that way about white people as a whole because of one person.

    Report Reply
  • lawsonellislawsonellis member
    Peledreamsofrain said:

    To my mind the most likely scenario was that Brown was running away, was told "stop or I'll shoot", and turned around in obedience to that direction. What happened after that moment is something only the officer and witnesses can answer. But again, this is why a trial and due process exists. Denying the process is a sick injustice perpetrated by a prosecutor who did a terrible job at covering up his motives.

    The more I read on this, the more I agree with this. The prosecutor did a horrible job of presenting the evidence for indictment. Whether the officer was guilty isn't for debate here, but should've been up for debate in the court of law.
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"