What are your thoughts on the failure to indict the police officer in Ferguson MO

[Spafranco]

Seems as though there are many riots taking place at this time in MO. The police officer was not charged by the Grand Jury and so the community is now taking it out on the businesses in the area (their own area).
Has there been a discussion on this issue recently and if so what does everyone feel about the verdict?

[schmenke]

Well, Christmas is around the corner...

[anfield5]

Difficult to judge from so far away.

My feeling is simple - no one deserves to be shot, and it shouldn't have happened, but from what I have seen, read and heard it was not that simple. The initial story said the 'victim' had just robbed a store and beaten the store-keeper and when he was challenged by the policeman he attacked him ( if this is not what happened I unreservedly apologise) The officer possibly over-reated by drawing his pistol, but this is always going to happen in the heat of the moment when an officer has a side arm. It shouldn't be the officer who is indicted, it should be the system that arms all officers (which is what the parents of the 'victim' came out and said this morning)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It's similar to the 2011 London riots in response to the shooting of Mark Duggan.

[donKey jote]

https://time.com/3602259/slain-12-year-old-father-cleveland-police/

[Mark]

It's similar to the 2011 London riots in response to the shooting of Mark Duggan.

Possibly, but it does go deeper than that. In the divide between black and white which the US has struggled with throughout it's history.

[Koz]

So, did he or did he not rob the store?

[driveace]

I understood the story as Anfield 5 did .The big problem with the states is the majority are armed.I have been to the states many times ,even Florida and New York for over 8 weeks this year.It does worry me that so many people are armed ,including many women who I have met.My thoughts are if the Police are NOT armed ,then not many would enrol for the job .IF this guy had robbed the store and beat the store owner then surely he expects retribution ,ie being caught and punished,and probably killed .I for one would not like to be the officer who has two choices ,either turn and run and maybe get shot in the back ,or draw his gun to frighten the guy ,and adrenalin pumping it is SO easy to squeeze the trigger too !Afterthought in a calm situation is a lt different from that heat of the moment situation ! Ask questions later comes to mind

[Firstgear]

Nobody seems to know exactly what happened because of conflicting eye witness accounts. But as far as the riots are concerned, I think a few things need to be considered:

- this happened in an area with a predominately black population.
- the panel/jury making the decision whether to charge the cop or not was made up of 9 white & 3 black members.
- the panel did not have to be unanimous in its decision, only needed a majority of 9 members (and votes are kept secret).

If this panel was made up to be more representative of the population (or have to be unanimous), and the same conclusion was reached it would be difficult to call it a race issue.

As it stands, with 9 votes needed and 9 whites in the panel, it's easy to turn it into a race issue - resulting in riots.

[schmenke]

O.k., I'll chime in...

My understanding, from what I’ve read in the media, is that Michael Brown did rob the store, rough up the clerk and walk out with a box of cigars. Witnesses also confirm that he did physically accost the policeman (Wilson?) in his patrol car.

Michael Brown did not deserve to die but is certainly no model citizen. The black activists are making him seem as an innocent victim but the recent “support for Michael Brown” movements do not sit well with me personally. I will certainly support equal rights for all, but cannot support the use of the death of an individual like Michael brown in this cause. I realize this may sound insensitive, but I feel the recent violent demonstrations by black activists are backfiring and perpetuating the racial rifts in America.

Btw, two final points:
1. I have read and heard, again as reported through the media, interviews and accounts by numerous witnesses but have not yet heard anyone interview the store owner.
2. Why is this thread titled “…failure to indict the police officer…”? Why is it a failure? Many would say that the justice system performed the way it was intended and that is a success.

[schmenke]

Nobody seems to know exactly what happened because of conflicting eye witness accounts. But as far as the riots are concerned, I think a few things need to be considered:

- this happened in an area with a predominately black population.
- the panel/jury making the decision whether to charge the cop or not was made up of 9 white & 3 black members.
- the panel did not have to be unanimous in its decision, only needed a majority of 9 members (and votes are kept secret).

If this panel was made up to be more representative of the population (or have to be unanimous), and the same conclusion was reached it would be difficult to call it a race issue.

As it stands, with 9 votes needed and 9 whites in the panel, it's easy to turn it into a race issue - resulting in riots.

I'm no legal expert here but would the jury members not have to have been screened and approved by both the prosecution and defense?

[Spafranco]

O.k., I'll chime in...

My understanding, from what I’ve read in the media, is that Michael Brown did rob the store, rough up the clerk and walk out with a box of cigars. Witnesses also confirm that he did physically accost the policeman (Wilson?) in his patrol car.

Michael Brown did not deserve to die but is certainly no model citizen. The black activists are making him seem as an innocent victim but the recent “support for Michael Brown” movements do not sit well with me personally. I will certainly support equal rights for all, but cannot support the use of the death of an individual like Michael brown in this cause. I realize this may sound insensitive, but I feel the recent violent demonstrations by black activists are backfiring and perpetuating the racial rifts in America.

Btw, two final points:
1. I have read and heard, again as reported through the media, interviews and accounts by numerous witnesses but have not yet heard anyone interview the store owner.
2. Why is this thread titled “…failure to indict the police officer…”? Why is it a failure? Many would say that the justice system performed the way it was intended and that is a success.

The use of the word "Failure" is commonly used by the media and the legal profession. I do understand your reason for asking this but the fact that this is not a procedure whereby there only happens to be a majority vote to either indict or one that seems to exonerate the person under indictment.

Maybe the word should have been "Declined".

[Firstgear]

I'm no legal expert here but would the jury members not have to have been screened and approved by both the prosecution and defense?
I can't answer that, but the way it played out leaves the perception of racism.
Also, if they're randomly selected/screened, how do they end up with a jury of 75% whites, when the population in the area is 90% black?

[Rollo]

2. Why is this thread titled “…failure to indict the police officer…”? Why is it a failure? Many would say that the justice system performed the way it was intended and that is a success.

I can't speak for the way that the mechanics of the justice system works but if this happened in New South Wales where I live and the NSW Police Prosecutors didn't think that a change was answerable, when one of their own has killed someone, immediately you begin to question the integrity of the service.
The fact that this was before a grand jury, wallpapers over that quite nicely.

Irrespective whether or not this case is racially charged, immediately there are serious questions to do with police integrity.
This family should sue for negligence resulting in death. If a criminal case can not be laid, then a civil one must.

[Mark]

I heard his account on the radio last night. From his testimony at least it would appear that he acted properly, but of course that's only one side of the story.

[Gregor-y]

This family should sue for negligence resulting in death. If a criminal case can not be laid, then a civil one must.

That's probably what will happen and is very common in brutality/death cases against authorities. While no one is held criminally responsible there is eventually a suit that will pay off the family. It's complex, mainly benefits lawyers and is a nasty example of having multiple levels of justice that have separate criteria. But that's how things have evolved as it's so difficult to get criminal convictions against companies, the wealthy and government agencies.

[schmenke]

How many remember this case? Days after the shooting of Michael Brown, in a very similar incident, Dillon Taylor, an unarmed white/Hispanic 20 year old is mistakenly shot by a black police officer in Utah.

Media attention? Perhaps a second-page byline in the newspapers.
No riots.
No grand jury investigation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/critics-see-racial-double-standard-in-coverage-of-/?page=all

[schmenke]

Meanwhile in Ferguson there are now suggestions for the Brown family to be held accountable for the destruction caused by the riots.

http://news.yahoo.com/michael-brown-stepfather-burn-this-down-ferguson-video-182317962.html

[henners88]

I don't know much about this as our news isn't covering it in any great detail. I understand what happened and it's surprising the copper got off with. The chap had previous convictions but that is no reason to shoot the fella. Then again my knowledge is vague and this just seems like any other shooting over there.

[Rudy Tamasz]

It shouldn't be the officer who is indicted, it should be the system that arms all officers (which is what the parents of the 'victim' came out and said this morning)

And how exactly would you "indict the system"?

[Tazio]

I understood the story as Anfield 5 did .The big problem with the states is the majority are armed.:laugh:
That's pretty funny daddy-o :rolleyes:
The latest figures state that 4.8% of Americans legally carry concealed firearms. In my State California the most populous State 35,000 have concealed permits. That is .12% of the total population. A lot of Americans own firearms roughly 40% of the population, but few actually carry their hoglegs with them. Even counting illegal carriers, I seriously doubt it is more than about 10%, and 'ace with all due respect you don't have a clue what gives in this country. I don't carry or even own a gun, do not feel the least bit threatened, and I believe the vast majority of my family, and network of friends feel the same way. Now Florida...... those people are wack with their gun laws, and not representative of the majority of U.S.

In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent, according to survey results released on Thursday. Researchers said the difference compared with 2010, when the rate was 32 percent, was not statistically significant. The findings contrast with the impression left by a flurry of news reports about people rushing to buy guns and clearing shop shelves of assault rifles after the massacre last year at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
“There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof,” said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research (http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/). “But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Sorry to burst your bubble mate!

[airshifter]

:laugh:
That's pretty funny daddy-o :rolleyes:
The latest figures state that 4.8% of Americans legally carry concealed firearms. In my State California the most populous State 35,000 have concealed permits. That is .12% of the total population. A lot of Americans own firearms roughly 40% of the population, but few actually carry their hoglegs with them. Even counting illegal carriers, I seriously doubt it is more than about 10%, and 'ace with all due respect you don't have a clue what gives in this country. I don't carry or even own a gun, do not feel the least bit threatened, and I believe the vast majority of my family, and network of friends feel the same way. Now Florida...... those people are wack with their gun laws, and not representative of the majority of U.S.
Sorry to burst your bubble mate!

By now you should know to save the keystrokes Taz. I've seen far too many posts where people that don't understand the facts about our gun laws and obviously don't understand the culture will tell us how it is. I'd have stopped out in California to tell you that, but I'm sure you're armed and would shoot me for a differing opinion!


It seems that several businesses in the area of mass destruction went untouched. The liberal media is failing to report anything about it. Probably because they were protected by lawful gun owners that didn't threaten anyone.

[Rollo]

It seems that several businesses in the area of mass destruction went untouched. The liberal media is failing to report anything about it. Probably because they were protected by lawful gun owners that didn't threaten anyone.

The conservative media is also failing to report anything about it.
Ordinary life doesn't get reported by media, of all shades.

[Tazio]

:stareup:
Let it go Rollo these sentiments are almost dead in my country AFAIK!!!!!
Life is good in Ca. and petrol is $2.76 a USG............mate! ;)
Cops blow away perceived bad guys., don't put a bullseye on your back mate, in any form reference or any otherf colorful soliloquy :grenade: :confused:........,.,.,.,:laugh:

[Starter]

The conservative media is also failing to report anything about it.
Ordinary life doesn't get reported by media, of all shades.
Too true.

[Starter]

So, did he or did he not rob the store?
Yes, it's clearly shown on the store's camera.

[driveace]

SO Taz ,what's your views on the Police being armed ?
IF your Police did not carry guns ,would people still apply for the job of Police Officer ?
And your the cop confronted by Mr Brown coming out of the store he has just robbed ,and he comes over to you ,put his hand on the top of your gun ,which you have drawn What's your next move ?

[Malbec]

SO Taz ,what's your views on the Police being armed ?
IF your Police did not carry guns ,would people still apply for the job of Police Officer ?
And your the cop confronted by Mr Brown coming out of the store he has just robbed ,and he comes over to you ,put his hand on the top of your gun ,which you have drawn What's your next move ?

The USA isn't the UK. A police officer doing his/her job in the US is likely to encounter armed criminals fairly regularly. In the UK its highly unlikely although its getting more common in some areas for the same reasons it is in the US, gang culture and inter-gang warfare.

IMO it would be negligent sending police officers unarmed into situations where they may encounter armed criminals, and a shop robbery would be exactly that kind of situation.

I'm not particularly familiar with the Ferguson case nor the more recent one of a 12 year old boy shot dead for pulling out a BB gun on police officers but I would be very hesitant to condemn a police officer for making an on-the-spot decision to shoot someone in self defence in the belief that the criminal is about to use a weapon on them. It is too easy to condemn looking at the situation through a retrospectoscope in the comfort of your own home with plenty of time to peruse what happened in a matter of seconds, quite another to make that decision to draw your weapon and pull the trigger when under a lot of duress where your own life is at stake.

That is not to say that the situation should be forgotten about, an inquiry is/was necessary if only to ensure police officers do not feel entitled to use lethal force with the belief there will not be consequences for them if it is misused.

[Tazio]

SO Taz ,what's your views on the Police being armed ?
Without a doubt I think they should be.
However I wish "my" police department's culture was one that encouraged the officers to blow people away less often.

IF your Police did not carry guns ,would people still apply for the job of Police Officer ? If you mean by my police you are referring to the SDPD I would say yes, some would TBH.

And your the cop confronted by Mr Brown coming out of the store he has just robbed ,and he comes over to you ,put his hand on the top of your gun ,which you have drawn What's your next move ? I think you are confused mate, I've never condemned this cop for having resorted to lethal force.
The problem I have with the police in San Diego is they tend to use lethal force too many times when other measures that simply require some cognitive thinking skills would preserve both parties health.
The SDPD don't shoot suspects, they empty their clips into them.

Also, San Diego is not a racially charged community like many less socially evolved, and less civilized parts of this country/world. For the most part people of color, as well as all ethnic backgrounds tend to interact normally. The police do not discriminate here, although they do tend to shoot unarmed homeless, and or mentally ill types.

[driveace]

Should the cop have to resign ?

[Starter]

Should the cop have to resign ?
"have to?" No. However he has chosen to.

[Rollo]

That is not to say that the situation should be forgotten about, an inquiry is/was necessary if only to ensure police officers do not feel entitled to use lethal force with the belief there will not be consequences for them if it is misused.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/26/michael-brown-civil-lawsuit-against-darren-wilson
That is not the case with a civil suit. The standard is “preponderance of the evidence”, the balance of probabilities which essentially means just “more likely than not”. It is sometimes described as 50.01%.
Another benefit of a civil suit is that Wilson himself could be compelled to testify.
Trachtenberg said that the lack of a grand jury indictment against Wilson doesn't necessarily affect the Brown family’s chances of winning a civil suit. “Certainly, if you get a criminal conviction then a civil suit is child’s play – all the jury would have to do is calculate damages,” he said. “[But] a mere indictment might not have been helpful.”
- The Grauniad, 27th Nov 2014

A question:
If you were the family of Michael Brown, would you think that justice had been served?
The fact that Officer Wilson was not indicted means that he will not be brought to the scrutiny of a criminal trial.

The way I figure it, the grand jury purpose of the Fifth Amendment is supposed to be a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial; is solidification of the process mentioned in the Magna Carta (1215). The problem is that no fair trial in a criminal court will even proceed. Is that good?

[Roamy]

this is another story of a drugged up punk who got caught out. With that being said this country has gotten so bad that only black officers should work in black neighborhoods.
Unfortunately the only answer is to fight violence with violence and this country would rather move to a walled community with a gate. But that is the way it is and it will only get a lot worse in the future. Would you rather walk down the street in detroit or singapore at 2.00am
side note:
UPDATED at 10:45 a.m. with arrest of third suspect in attack.

ST. LOUIS • A third male suspect in a deadly hammer attack over the weekend in the Bevo Mill neighborhood turned himself into city police headquarters late Sunday night, police say. The third suspect is 17. Two other males, 15 and 16, were in custody earlier Sunday....

Had this guy been armed properly he may still me alive and better yet perhaps 3 more thugs removed from the earth !!!!

[Starter]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/26/michael-brown-civil-lawsuit-against-darren-wilson
That is not the case with a civil suit. The standard is “preponderance of the evidence”, the balance of probabilities which essentially means just “more likely than not”. It is sometimes described as 50.01%.
Another benefit of a civil suit is that Wilson himself could be compelled to testify.
Trachtenberg said that the lack of a grand jury indictment against Wilson doesn't necessarily affect the Brown family’s chances of winning a civil suit. “Certainly, if you get a criminal conviction then a civil suit is child’s play – all the jury would have to do is calculate damages,” he said. “[But] a mere indictment might not have been helpful.”
- The Grauniad, 27th Nov 2014

A question:
If you were the family of Michael Brown, would you think that justice had been served?
The fact that Officer Wilson was not indicted means that he will not be brought to the scrutiny of a criminal trial.

The way I figure it, the grand jury purpose of the Fifth Amendment is supposed to be a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial; is solidification of the process mentioned in the Magna Carta (1215). The problem is that no fair trial in a criminal court will even proceed. Is that good?
The answer is that its in the eye of the beholder and their pre assumed viewpoint. Some of the facts in this case are clear, as opposed to the Treyvon Martin incident. Brown is clearly shown on the store surveillance camera stealing merchandise and, when confronted by one of the owners, assaulting her. So, contrary to some people's statements, he was not an innocent person. While true that legally he was a child (16 years old) he was also over 6 feet tall and weighed more than 200 pounds. What is less clear to those not in the grand jury room is what happened in the police car and after. Therefor my opinion is that justice was served. The grand jury did not seem to think there was enough evidence to bring the case to trial

[Roamy]

so why are we beating this dead horse. He was killed legally and scumbags went shopping

[Spafranco]

this is another story of a drugged up punk who got caught out. With that being said this country has gotten so bad that only black officers should work in black neighborhoods.
Unfortunately the only answer is to fight violence with violence and this country would rather move to a walled community with a gate. But that is the way it is and it will only get a lot worse in the future. Would you rather walk down the street in detroit or singapore at 2.00am
side note:
UPDATED at 10:45 a.m. with arrest of third suspect in attack.

ST. LOUIS • A third male suspect in a deadly hammer attack over the weekend in the Bevo Mill neighborhood turned himself into city police headquarters late Sunday night, police say. The third suspect is 17. Two other males, 15 and 16, were in custody earlier Sunday....

Had this guy been armed properly he may still me alive and better yet perhaps 3 more thugs removed from the earth !!!!

Wow! What a racially inappropriate rant!!!

[schmenke]

Wow! What a racially inappropriate rant!!!

Why do you say that?

[Starter]

Why do you say that?
Good question. While Roamy's post may be somewhat out there, there was absolutely nothing racial mentioned. Unless Spafranco believes that any mention of "drugged up punks" automatically refers to a certain ethnic group. This country has plenty of scumbags, lowlifes and "drugged up punks" from white, hispanic, black and, to a lesser extent, asian groups to go around. Spafranco's automatic assignment of racial prejudice says more about his assumptions than it does about Roamy's.

[Spafranco]

Good question. While Roamy's post may be somewhat out there, there was absolutely nothing racial mentioned. Unless Spafranco believes that any mention of "drugged up punks" automatically refers to a certain ethnic group. This country has plenty of scumbags, lowlifes and "drugged up punks" from white, hispanic, black and, to a lesser extent, asian groups to go around. Spafranco's automatic assignment of racial prejudice says more about his assumptions than it does about Roamy's.

Starter, do not assume that what you say about my thoughts and beliefs is something that you have any comprehension of. If you do not see the racially charged, although probably not intentional opening remark by Roamy, then you just skipped everything that was said to find a reason, once more, as is your wont to make a misguided assumption and have a jab at me.

[schmenke]

I personally don't see anything "racially charged" in Roamy's post. If anything, he makes a good point.

[Starter]

Starter, do not assume that what you say about my thoughts and beliefs is something that you have any comprehension of. If you do not see the racially charged, although probably not intentional opening remark by Roamy, then you just skipped everything that was said to find a reason, once more, as is your wont to make a misguided assumption and have a jab at me.
I wasn't looking to pick an argument with you, just pointing out that you were, in this case, assuming facts not in evidence.

[Spafranco]

I wasn't looking to pick an argument with you, just pointing out that you were, in this case, assuming facts not in evidence.
I stand by what I said pertaining my post even if the statement made by the poster was innocent. I believe we can agree to disagree on this one.

[Rollo]

so why are we beating this dead horse. He was killed legally and scumbags went shopping

Can you prove that? That's a bold claim.

The problem with US law is that there is no inherent right to life (unless it's covered by the tenth amendment or possibly the fifth) and so consequently, the only directives you have to play with are the rulings of the Supreme Court; thus:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html
Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Is something which might be "constitutionally unreasonable", legal?

[Starter]

Can you prove that? That's a bold claim.

The problem with US law is that there is no inherent right to life (unless it's covered by the tenth amendment or possibly the fifth) and so consequently, the only directives you have to play with are the rulings of the Supreme Court; thus:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html
Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Is something which might be "constitutionally unreasonable", legal?
Could be, but the (alleged) facts in this case are that the suspect was in the act of assaulting the arresting officer and not just trying to escape. So this example isn't a good comparison to your quote above.

[Roamy]

with the evidence this case was a no brainer but everyone wants to beat it to death. It went through the lawful course and a decision has been made. But WTF lets create anarchy to keep things exciting.

[Rollo]

with the evidence this case was a no brainer but everyone wants to beat it to death. It went through the lawful course and a decision has been made. But WTF lets create anarchy to keep things exciting.

Yes, it went through the lawful course and that must make it right.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/315990_1.jpg


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30323750
In isolation, the decision of the grand jury in Staten Island not to indict the white NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo would have sparked anger.
The fact that it came less than 10 days after a grand jury in Missouri decided that the white officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown should not face criminal charges has amplified the sense of racial injustice felt by those who believe the decision is inexplicable.
In contrast to Ferguson, there is video evidence showing what happened in Staten Island. New York's medical examiner had already ruled that the death of Eric Garner was a homicide, and that the chokehold contributed to it.
- BBC News, 4th Dec 2014

The fact that this happened once might be seen as unfortunate but the case of Brown appears not to be isolated. If this is a systemic issue then there is a more serious issue at hand.
This become less of an issue about "saying police shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone ever" but rather, what is the excuse being used to hide behind when they do.

Would you be happy for instance if the police killed someone whom the government deemed "undesirable" and then got off because a grand jury didn't indict them? That sort of circumstance isn't that far removed from either of these two cases.

The message which is being sent by the justice system at the moment is that it does not black lives as it does white lives.
Whilst it might be true that black men commit criminal offences at a higher rate than other Americans, the justice system apparently allows absolution for law officers to kill them.

Does the American justice system actually do justice?

[Starter]

Yes, it went through the lawful course and that must make it right.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/315990_1.jpg


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30323750
In isolation, the decision of the grand jury in Staten Island not to indict the white NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo would have sparked anger.
The fact that it came less than 10 days after a grand jury in Missouri decided that the white officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown should not face criminal charges has amplified the sense of racial injustice felt by those who believe the decision is inexplicable.
In contrast to Ferguson, there is video evidence showing what happened in Staten Island. New York's medical examiner had already ruled that the death of Eric Garner was a homicide, and that the chokehold contributed to it.
- BBC News, 4th Dec 2014

The fact that this happened once might be seen as unfortunate but the case of Brown appears not to be isolated. If this is a systemic issue then there is a more serious issue at hand.
This become less of an issue about "saying police shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone ever" but rather, what is the excuse being used to hide behind when they do.
You are talking about two different places about a thousand miles apart in distance. America is a big place, much like Australia. It would be less than intellectual rigor to lump these cases as the same, based on only a vague similarity. Not to excuse the police when they step over the bounds of their legal duties (me being someone who has experience with that), but its a tough job and their decisions sometimes must be made in split seconds under stressful conditions - no malice intended.


Would you be happy for instance if the police killed someone whom the government deemed "undesirable" and then got off because a grand jury didn't indict them? That sort of circumstance isn't that far removed from either of these two cases.
No I would not be happy about that. The government, as an entity, does not deem anyone "undesirable" though individual agents of the government sometime do.


The message which is being sent by the justice system at the moment is that it does not black lives as it does white lives.
Whilst it might be true that black men commit criminal offences at a higher rate than other Americans, the justice system apparently allows absolution for law officers to kill them.
As I said, its a big place and that probably does happen from time to time somewhere, but it is not the system which does it, its the acts of individual officers of the law or in some cases a local mind set of the police.


Does the American justice system actually do justice?
For the most part yes. Much more so than a lot of places in the world. Some places it depends on how big a bribe you can afford. Almost everywhere, if you are well connected, it goes somewhat easier on you. I'll take the system here as opposed to say Sharia law or Putin's Russia for two examples. No place is perfect and no justice system is perfect. The American one is most definitely above average.

[airshifter]

Can you prove that? That's a bold claim.

The problem with US law is that there is no inherent right to life (unless it's covered by the tenth amendment or possibly the fifth) and so consequently, the only directives you have to play with are the rulings of the Supreme Court; thus:


The inherent right to life is assumed in all US law, and was a part of the Declaration of Independence. Other than the controversial subjects such as abortion (where the definition of "life" is at question), euthanasia, etc, laws assume right to life. That right may be lost in the case where any individual is reasonably thought to be imposing on another persons right to life with threat of gross injury or death.

Even in other controversial laws such as the castle laws, the basis is that if someone forces entry, they are a threat that may inflict gross bodily harm upon the occupants.


I would suggest that any laws by any nation that give right to life without exception have allowed that someone could blatantly take that right from someone else without any fear of just consequence.

[Tazio]

I'm actually really glad I don't live in in NYC or South St. Lou, or any other place on gods green earth like them. Degenerates like Roamy! ;) fish there! :dozey: :angel:

[Roamy]

hey some gay San Diegoan is calling me a Degenerate - :):)

[Tazio]

hey some gay San Diegoan is calling me a Degenerate - :):)
:angel: Actually it was a backhanded compliment dukie, knowing that you and I share at least one passion other than F1. We are both brothers of that angle, and as you know we catch some big Bucket-mouths in S.D. County. In case you've been neglecting your favorite recreation, I suggest you get a massage to hold you over.....mate ;)

[Rollo]

You are talking about two different places about a thousand miles apart in distance. America is a big place, much like Australia. It would be less than intellectual rigor to lump these cases as the same, based on only a vague similarity.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/9.html
In my opinion there is a real distinction in the degree of culpability of an accused who has killed having formed the requisite intention without any mitigating circumstance, and an accused who, in response to a real or a reasonably apprehended attack, strikes a blow in order to defend himself, but uses force beyond that required by the occasion and thereby kills the attacker.
- Viro v The Queen (1978)

A person who is subjected to a violent and felonious attack and who, in endeavouring, by way of self-defence, to prevent the consummation of that attack by force exercises more force than a reasonable man would consider necessary in the circumstances, but no more than what he honestly believed to be necessary in the circumstances, is guilty of manslaughter and not of murder.
- R v McKay (1957) (sorry, still looking for a link)

In Australian law, there is no point when killing someone doesn't warrant charges as killing someone is always an excessive use of force in common law. And because Australia is a Federal Commonwealth, common law applies across all of it.


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1788)

America is a big place, but:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
- Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution

The Supremacy clause provides that Federal law is the highest law of the land. Violation of someone's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which is precisely what happened with Michael Brown by virtue of the fact that no criminal proceedings will take place, is quite frankly, horrible.

[Starter]

[QUOTE=Rollo;1028978}The Supremacy clause provides that Federal law is the highest law of the land. Violation of someone's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which is precisely what happened with Michael Brown by virtue of the fact that no criminal proceedings will take place, is quite frankly, horrible.[/QUOTE]
That's a very nice try at obfuscating. A literal reading of this - "violating someone's life, liberty, or property without due process of law" could be interpreted to mean that to one can be arrested or detained until proven guilty in court. This is obviously not the case anywhere in the world.

[Rollo]

That's a very nice try at obfuscating. A literal reading of this - "violating someone's life, liberty, or property without due process of law" could be interpreted to mean that to one can be arrested or detained until proven guilty in court. This is obviously not the case anywhere in the world.

The first four words of the amendment are:
"No person shall be"...

The thing about reading a sentence is that you need to read the whole sentence.

Brown was killed before proven guilty in court. That is entire unambiguous and still horrible.

[airshifter]

The first four words of the amendment are:
"No person shall be"...

The thing about reading a sentence is that you need to read the whole sentence.

Brown was killed before proven guilty in court. That is entire unambiguous and still horrible.

.... and the matter with citing law is that you have to understand the law. You are citing constitutional reference that regards the rights of the accused, and that the [i]government[/b] may not violate their rights under due process. The constitutional law exists to protect the rights of all the accused within the US.

The law that applies to Brown and the cop is Missouri law, not US code. Being that the physical evidence of both the state and Browns family show that the cops version was correct and that he was backing away from a criminal continuing to charge him, the state found the action of the cop legal and did not charge the cop.


You can't twist constitutional rights and apply them in a form they are not intended for. But by all means, continue acting as if others can't understand a sentence. ;)

[schmenke]

...Brown was killed before proven guilty in court. That is entire unambiguous and still horrible.

:cornfused: Brown was never charged and was never on trial.

[Roamy]

:angel: Actually it was a backhanded compliment dukie, knowing that you and I share at least one passion other than F1. We are both brothers of that angle, and as you know we catch some big Bucket-mouths in S.D. County. In case you've been neglecting your favorite recreation, I suggest you get a massage to hold you over.....mate ;)

Taz I knew that - my post was a joke too.

[Rollo]

:cornfused: Brown was never charged and was never on trial.

Exactly.
He was "deprived of life"; "without due process of law". That is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

[Starter]

Exactly.
He was "deprived of life"; "without due process of law". That is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
What part of Airshifter's post (#55) did you not understand?

[keysersoze]

Sorry I'm late to this party, but I will chime in.

The grand jury decision was the correct one. Now to the bafflement on this board that the jury was 75% white, St. Louis county (where the incident took place) is 75% white. That's how they choose grand jurors.

Michael Brown shoudn't have died, but he is largely responsible for his own death. Let's get this clear: this 6-4, 290 pound, 18 year-old adult (not 16 as someone else mentioned) was clearly engaged in thug-ish behavior before and during his encounter with Officer Wilson. Stealing from a convenience store and shoving aside the storekeeper, then walking down the middle of the road in his drug-induced state (THC was in his system), Brown then proceeded to disobey Officer Wilson directive to get out of the street.

This is Darren Wilson's testimony:

After Wilson pulled his car to the side of the road, Brown then punched Wilson while the police officer was still in his car, and tried to grab for his gun. Only after Wilson fired a shot (which hit him in the hand) did Brown start to run. Wilson then exits his squad car and goes after him, ordering Brown to stop. Brown turns around, and with his hand inside his pants (did he have a weapon?), starts to rush Wilson. Wilson, still urging Brown to stop, shoots and hits Brown, who continues to run toward Wilson, who even backpeddles in order to avoid the now significantly wounded Brown. Still moving forward, Brown begins to fall forward as Wilson fires the fatal head shot.

There were a number of conflicting eyewitness accounts, but the THREE coroner examiners corroborated Wilson's testimony. (There was Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun)

Brown's stepfather (you know, the one who in the aftermath of the decision was shouting, "Burn this b#$%* down"!) had served a 5 year sentence for cocaine (or heroine) distribution. I mean, what chance did the young Michael Brown have with that kind of role model around the house?

It's awful that Brown died. And the cops get things wrong sometimes. But the grand jury decision was the only logical one.

Now the Garner case in NYC, that non-indictment was perplexing.

[Rollo]

What part of Airshifter's post (#55) did you not understand?

This bit:

The law that applies to Brown and the cop is Missouri law, not US code.

It's not true.

Notwithstanding the fact Cohens v. Virginia (1821) also upholds the fact that state law does not override federal law; certainly not rights.

[airshifter]

Exactly.
He was "deprived of life"; "without due process of law". That is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Brown was deprived of life when he chose to assault a cop who, by law, had a legal right to protect himself and the community.

The fifth exists to protect citizens against unwarranted prosecution. Had Brown intentionally killed by a cop (or other government authority) without arrest, trial, etc, that would be a violation of the fifth.

In this instance, the right to self preservation would have existed even if Wilson had not been a cop. It's part of that inherent right to life you claim doesn't exist within US law. Based on your attempts to twist the fifth to find fault in the US system, no person would have such right to self preservation. A court would decide if they had that right after they were possibly dead.



This bit:


It's not true.

Notwithstanding the fact Cohens v. Virginia (1821) also upholds the fact that state law does not override federal law; certainly not rights.

You may want to better inform yourself about the facts. Wilson's case was handled by a state court and was not a federal proceeding.