No indictment in the mike brown case
 

I don't know what to think, but sad to see another unarmed man killed by the police. Don't really understand why the need of so many shots were fired by the officer.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

The worst part about this is that nothing will change. The police will still shoot first and ask questions later. The police will still overreact to groups of peaceful demonstrators. The police will still penalize the poor harassing them with a larger majority of fines, that they can not afford.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

The police there have a history of racial issues that have never been properly addressed within the force. Police there can't be trusted

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

Just was listening to the prosecutor, he relayed the following:

As to the forensic evidence,
- A bullet recovered from inside the vehicle, pointing downward into the armrest;
- Blood on Brown's thumb with powder residue inside the wound consistent with a close range shot;
- Blood on Wilson's collar and pants;
- Shots on Brown's body consistent with him being bent over in a running position.
- Blood was found 25' from the final location of the body (shot fired, blood spilled, Brown moves 25' closer to officer, more shots fired).

Wilson had injuries (not severe, but described by hospital records as redness and swelling) to his face and head.

As to witnesses, the grand jury heard testimony from several witnesses who had chosen not to speak to the media.

There was inconsistent testimony as to the whole "hands raised" issue. Witnesses were apparently all over the board as to where Brown's hands were. Up, out to the sides, balled in fists, etc.

Multiple African-American witnesses indicated that Brown was charging Wilson.

The testimony was apparently all over the board as to the events.

Bottom line, there was a ton of evidence reviewed by the Grand Jury and most (if not all) was released.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1095910]The police there have a history of racial issues that have never been properly addressed within the force. Police there can't be trusted[/quote]

By all accounts, that's a true statement. At the same time, in this instance, the it appears that a thieve who punched an officer, reached into the officer's car, tried grab his gun and then got shot while charging the officer.

Could Wilson have done something differently? Probably. Could it all been avoided if Brown had not attempted to assault an officer? Most definitely.

Sorry, if you want a poster child of racial profiling by police, Michael Brown - [I]on the day in question[/I] - is not the guy.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

The department this cop came from was Jennings PD. That Police Force was disbanded, partly because it was overrun with racial problems between their mostly white officers and mostly black populace.

Tell me how Brown was going to reach through a window and pull a gun out of the Cop's holster on the far hip away from the window. It is physically impossible. No forensic team in this country has ever not backed up whatever story the cops wanted to tell and the DA only presented what he wished to. On top of that the DA didn't even present himself, he had 2 junior assistants do it. Out of hundred's of police shootings in recent years, there has only been one who ever was found guilty and that was only because multiple people filmed the cop shooting an unarmed victim that was cuffed.

There was never going to be a chance in this case. If that had been a black guy shooting a white guy the trail would already be over. Justice is like Art, I may not be able to describe it, but I know it when I see it. I also know when I don't see it.

Edit: oh and the 1 officer ,who shot the handcuffed victim in the back, was sentenced on November 5th 2010 and released May 3rd 2011. Six Months.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

Tell me how a bullet ended up in a downward trajectory in the door's armrest, Brown got powder residue in the wound where a bullet grazed his thumb, and Brown's blood got on the cop's collar, pants and steering wheel.

Whatever dude. Clearly, there could be video of Brown assaulting the cop and I am sure you would find some flaw with it.

The forensic evidence is what it is. The medical evidence shows that the officer's face was red and bruised. All photo shopped of course. Several African-American witnesses had Brown punching the officer in the car. [Because there were many conflicting witness stories, I only point this out to demonstrate it was not just the officers making incriminating statements about Brown].

I am not saying there weren't problems with the Ferguson PD. From all accounts it had serious problems. Doesn't mean Brown didn't assault the officer [I]in this case[/I].

But, go ahead, take the word of a mob over actual evidence. I am sure that will lead to justice every time.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

At least 10 shots with 6 of them hitting the [B]unarmed [/B]victim is not self defense no matter what the police claim the circumstances were.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

Suspected thief assaults you in your vehicle. Attempts to take your gun which discharges in your vehicle. He turns to leave. You confront. He turns and charges. You fire several shots. He continues to charge. You fire a second series of shots.

That description of events matches the forensic evidence and audio evidence at the scene (there is audio evidence that plays a series shots fired, a pause, then a second volley of shots).

Armed or unarmed, if you want to get your ass shot, assault a police officer, ignore his orders to halt and then run at him. Pretty sure that's a recipe for SBP.

Again, lots of interactions with police are demonstrations in police brutality. This was not one of them.




Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

If I shot someone like this cop did I would be in jail. No If ands or buts about it. This cop only gets away with it because he has a uniform on. Period. No one else gets to murder someone and walk away.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=Hijinx;1095933]At least 10 shots with 6 of them hitting the [B]unarmed [/B]victim is not self defense no matter what the police claim the circumstances were.[/quote]

Cops are trained to aim center mass and shot to neutralize the threat immediately. Not sure what Officer Brown had as a gun but a very common patrolman's weapon is a 9mm pistol. Have you ever fired one? Supposedly the first clip were a combination of shots that went through Brown's arms or missed. A person with fast hands can change out a clip in a second and a half and squeeze a trigger 6 times a second. You could shoot somebody six times before they probably even realized they had been hit.

This isn't Hollywood where a handgun bullet sends a 200 pound man flying backwards. Cops don't squeeze off one shot and then wait to see what happens. The guy had already went for the officers gun and was charging him. Officer Wilson was also by himself, that makes a big difference in strategy.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[QUOTE=Hijinx;1095935]If I shot someone like this cop did I would be in jail. No If ands or buts about it. This cop only gets away with it because he has a uniform on. Period. No one else gets to murder someone and walk away.[/QUOTE]

The depth of "wrong" and complete misunderstanding of the rule of law in this statement demonstrates your inherent bias on the issue.

If you, as a lawfully armed citizen, pursued an individual after an altercation had ended and took it upon yourself to initiate a second confrontation in which you used deadly force. Yes, you may likely end up in jail charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

That, however, is very different from a law enforcement officer trying to apprehend a suspected criminal who just assaulted the law enforcement officer, made an attempt to grab the law enforcement officer's weapon, ignored the lawful commands of the law enforcement officer, and who was now charging the law enforcement officer in an attempt assault him a second time.

But, by all means, buy into the media's racial spin, make a judgment based on what they tell you, and only trust the judicial process when it rules the way you think it should based on your incomplete, media supplied understanding of the facts.

Pitchforks and torches uber alles!


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

He shouldn't have been indicted.

(page 1167 of the grand jury testimony is an eye witness account that backs up cop's story)

[url]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-assets/grand-jury-testimony.pdf[/url]



Add the firearm report, the dna report and it all matches the cop's version on what happened. This is a no brainer and I wished the public would get behind a better case instead of one where the people in question are innocent.


Nobody gives a fuck about the evidence, and I seriously doubt they care if the cop is guilty or not. They just want him to suffer due to racial injustices in the community.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1095915]By all accounts, that's a true statement. At the same time, in this instance, the it appears that a thieve who punched an officer, reached into the officer's car, tried grab his gun and then got shot while charging the officer.

Could Wilson have done something differently? Probably. Could it all been avoided if Brown had not attempted to assault an officer? Most definitely.

[B]Sorry, if you want a poster child of racial profiling by police, Michael Brown - [I]on the day in question[/I] - is not the guy[/B].[/quote]

Yeah this is a good point, but I wasnt really going there with my statement.

Point was, there is a history within police force so i cant 100% trust the officer story. There is also accounts of officer wilson in the past of being shady. Also there is, I believe, account of the prosecuter being a "cop guy" where issues in the past have not been handled correctly.

I believe the best course of action now is to open those complaints from before and go after the officers in the force and see if we can get charges brought. Looks like the prosecutors dont have the balls to do whats right, which is no surprise.

Simply, saying oh well and moving right along is the wrong way. I would strongly urge the folks to burn the city to the ground if thats the attitude

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1095972]Yeah this is a good point, but I wasnt really going there with my statement.

Point was, [U]there is a history within police force[/U] so i cant 100% trust the officer story. There is also [U]accounts of officer wilson in the past of being shady[/U].[/U] Also there is, I believe,[U] account of the prosecuter being a "cop guy" [/U]where issues in the past have not been handled correctly.

I believe the best course of action now is to open those complaints from before and go after the officers in the force and see if we can get charges brought. Looks like the prosecutors dont have the balls to do whats right, which is no surprise.

Simply, saying oh well and moving right along is the wrong way. I would strongly urge the folks to burn the city to the ground if thats the attitude[/quote]How do you charge ANYONE based on what you said? (underlined for effect). Seriously? WTF?

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1095973]How do you charge ANYONE based on what you said? (underlined for effect). Seriously? WTF?[/quote]

State or federal government should bring in special presecutors. You need to bring in indepedent folks. The police captain should be fired or made to step down. its criminal he is still in charge, his house should be burned down first

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1095972]Yeah this is a good point, but I wasnt really going there with my statement.

Point was, there is a history within police force so i cant 100% trust the officer story. There is also accounts of officer wilson in the past of being shady. Also there is, I believe, account of the prosecuter being a "cop guy" where issues in the past have not been handled correctly.

I believe the best course of action now is to open those complaints from before and go after the officers in the force and see if we can get charges brought. Looks like the prosecutors dont have the balls to do whats right, which is no surprise.

Simply, saying oh well and moving right along is the wrong way. I would strongly urge the folks to burn the city to the ground if thats the attitude[/quote]


SO you just going to ignore the facts in the case, which I conveniently posted above? I think I'm about as anti-police as you can get, but the idea of prosecuting a person wrongly is sickening.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1095976]SO you just going to ignore the facts in the case, which I conveniently posted above? I think I'm about as anti-police as you can get, but the idea of prosecuting a person wrongly is sickening.[/quote]

I can see how charges werent brought, but I really dont think there was ever a fair chance they would be brought. The cards were already stacked against the community because of the culture within the police department/presecutor's office.


Dont tell me justice was served this time, when it hasnt been in the past. But this time we got it right, so we are all good. Nope that doesnt work and its not right. So burn it down

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

Another sign of a city/police department/prosecutor who has no clue is announcing the verdict of whether to indict...announcing it at night. Cant believe the city would further put its citizens lives in more danger. WTF?

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

Again, the police force in Ferguson was not on trial, that's not how it works - guilt by association is not acceptable for anyone. Whether the suspect is a policeman or a minority, you look at the facts of the incident, and [I]only[/I] those facts, when deciding to charge someone with a crime. We don't put people on trial and at risk of their liberty b/c of their reputation - or the reputation of those with whom they are associated. Rather, the American justice/judicial system is based on the principle that you can only be tried for the specific crime being alleged.

The prosecutor has a lot of control in the grand jury. He could have gamed the system and gotten an indictment by withholding some evidence or highlighting others. I don't know a whole lot about the practice but I [I]believe[/I] prosecutors normally present minimal evidence - just enough to get an indictment. Here, the prosecutor presented a lot of evidence to the GJ both exculpatory and not so. You would have to talk to a criminal prosecutor to find out just how outside the norm such a procedure is, if at all.

At the same time, unlike in a trial, the jurors get to examine witnesses directly and can essentially say "Is that all you have?" Again, I [I]believe[/I] the G. Jurors themselves can request subpoenas and more evidence. Ultimately, it is their call.

The issue of Ferguson's police force and racial profiling is a separate matter. There are mechanisms to appeal to State and Federal authorities for review. I believe that some of those actions are in progress. While police must have authority to enforce the law and society has to buy into that for them to be effective, abuse of authority should be [I]severely[/I] punished and I don't trust police dept.'s to police their own.

[The reason the punishment must be severe is b/c of the social contract with law enforcement and is the converse of why those who attack law enforcement officers should also be severely punished: "We give you authority to use force against us so that we may have safety in our daily lives. Further, because you place yourself in harm's way for us, we have your back. Because an assault on an officer of the law is an assault on all of us, we will make sure that those who attack or attempt to harm you, as you protect us, are punished to a greater extent than if they attacked one of us directly. In return, you promise not to abuse either the authority given or the protection provided. If you do, we will hold you to the same harsh standards as we hold those who would attempt to undermine the rule of law by attacking you."]

Given the scenes of mob criminality last night, and the distrust of the police force, however, I am not sure how the rule of law will ever be reestablished in that town. It is a sad state when the citizenry can't/won't trust those entrusted to enforce the rule of law because those in authority have abused their authority. I suspect Ferguson is in for a long, dark night of repression and lawlessness (symbolically speaking that is).

One final thought - A recurrent theme is that a black officer shooting an unarmed white guy would be in jail pronto. You can believe what you wish, my belief differs. I suggest to you that, in this case - if Wilson were black and Brown were white, Ferguson's Thin Blue Line would have rallied around the officer just as they did here and the shooting would have made the local news - but not a blip anywhere else - and when the GJ inevitably chose not to indict the black officer not a single riot would have ensued.

[I][B]In this case,[/B][/I] Brown assaulted an officer, ignored his lawful commands, and charged at him. The mob saw one thing, the forensics evidenced another. The "no indictment" decision was right [I][B]In this case,[/B][/I] regardless of: (1) the race of the cop or the dead teen; (2) whether or not Wilson was a sketchy cop; or (3) whether or not the Ferguson PD was a sketchy unit.

Racial hatred/suspicion runs so deep in this country - especially amongst the lower social classes of both whites and blacks. Just don't know if it will ever get better.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

good post Joe

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1095977]Dont tell me justice was served this time, when it hasnt been in the past. But this time we got it right, so we are all good. Nope that doesnt work and its not right. So burn it down[/quote]

(1) Justice was served [I][B]in this case[/B][/I]. If it has not been in the past, it does not make it right to indict a person for a crime regardless of their own guilt or innocence. Two wrongs [I]do not [/I]make a right. Making someone a sacrificial lamb to suffer for the wrongs of others is a bad, bad road to tread and, in my opinion, patently unfair.

(2) We are not all good. Abuses of authority need to be fully investigated. If the Justice Dept. or the local State govt. hasn't done so already, a full investigation of the Ferguson PD and its pattern and practices should be initiated. Something is broken in the community when the police are so mistrusted that no matter what the evidence may or may not show, the police are assumed at all times to be acting in bad faith.

Anarchy - "burn it down" - however, is not the answer and not one that (at least I hope it wouldn't) will resonate with the vast majority of Americans.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1095994](1) Justice was served [I][B]in this case[/B][/I]. If it has not been in the past, it does not make it right to indict a person for a crime regardless of their own guilt or innocence. Two wrongs [I]do not [/I]make a right. Making someone a sacrificial lamb to suffer for the wrongs of others is a bad, bad road to tread and, in my opinion, patently unfair.

(2) We are not all good. Abuses of authority need to be fully investigated. If the Justice Dept. or the local State govt. hasn't done so already, a full investigation of the Ferguson PD and its pattern and practices should be initiated. Something is broken in the community when the police are so mistrusted that no matter what the evidence may or may not show, the police are assumed at all times to be acting in bad faith.

Anarchy - "burn it down" - however, is not the answer and not one that (at least I hope it wouldn't) will resonate with the vast majority of Americans.[/quote]

On no 1 we are going to have to disagree, point 2 i agree, and pt3 there comes a time where burn it down does reasonates especially with Redskins fans and the Redskins organization.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

The US was founded on a point in time where burn it down (or pour tea in the sea) made sense, so there do come points in human history that it makes sense. Is this one of those points in time in US history? Certainly the 1960's were, maybe this is, and I tend to think we may not be that far off, but this rage in Ferguson seems misguided to me. There have been several threads of police abuse, and on most I side with the civilian group, even on Ferguson at first I sided against the police, but assuming that the facts presented by JR are reasonably accurate and representative of the case, then as Joe said, this isn't the case to start the fire with.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1096010]The US was founded on a point in time where burn it down (or pour tea in the sea) made sense, so there do come points in human history that it makes sense. Is this one of those points in time in US history? Certainly the 1960's were, maybe this is, and I tend to think we may not be that far off, but this rage in Ferguson seems misguided to me. There have been several threads of police abuse, and on most I side with the civilian group, even on Ferguson at first I sided against the police, but assuming that the facts presented by JR are reasonably accurate and representative of the case, then as Joe said,[B] this isn't the case to start the fire with[/B].[/quote]

Easy to say when you not living in a community where people fear the police and everyone is treated as a criminal. Lotta people dont know that feeling. I say what better time than now to burn down the police department and city hall. These people are recognized within the community only as criminals and that is not right. So you know, since we all criminals regardless burn baby burn

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[B][I]On No. 1[/I][/B] - Okay. We've reasonably disagreed before, that's fine. However, are you really saying that, even if the GJ thought Wilson innocent of any criminal behavior, it should have indicted him b/c, in the past, he or people with whom he associates may have done bad things?

Are you really espousing the doctrine that, to determine criminal conduct in a particular instance, we should be bringing in reputations and past associations? You don't see how that could be incredibly damaging to defendant rights? All of sudden, it's not "Did you commit a crime?" it's "Are you popular within the community?"

Or are you only applying that to cases [I]you[/I] think it appropriate?


[B][I]On No. 3 [/I][/B](and leaving the Redskins aside because I, for one, am tired of the burn it down mentality that comes every three years):

When burn it down resonates with a minority group to the degree that violence to person and property are condoned, it is going to face significant opposition from vast majority of those who see violence as a threat to their security.

Regardless of the injustice, whether imagined or real (and I would suggest there is plenty of both), I suggest to you society as a whole will simply not succumb to demands made by violence. Whether you believe it fair or unfair, the judicial system "works" for too many people by providing protection, relief and a peaceful forum for conflict resolution whether they be civil or criminal. In every locality across the US, the courts grind through the best they making literally 1000's of judgments great and small every day.

It's not perfect but, if you burn it down, you will find yourself with something worse - I guarantee it.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1096014][B]Easy to say when you not living in a community where people fear the police and everyone is treated as a criminal.[/B] Lotta people dont know that feeling. I say what better time than now to burn down the police department and city hall. These people are recognized within the community only as criminals and that is not right. So you know, since we all criminals regardless burn baby burn[/quote]

True enough. Just b/c a statement is easier for some to say than others, however, doesn't invalidate the correctness of the underlying statement (nor, for that matter, does it validate an incorrect statement). As CRed said, this was not the case to start to the fire. If the minority community says, "Regardless of actual guilt or innocence, we will not listen to the evidence when you say one of us is a criminal and will resort to mob violence," it is simply ignoring the rule of law - the very same thing it is saying is wrong when applied to them.

It's just this simple, two wrongs don't make a right. Ever.

I am sure you see it differently, but all last night's reaction to the decision did for me was validate that this was a community with high levels of disregard for civil society - Burn it down? They were burning and looting stores and property that had nothing to do with City Hall or law enforcement. Clearly, there was a substantial element that obeys the law [I]only[/I] b/c it is enforced by police officers and, when they aren't there to do so, mayhem. In such a community, law enforcement has only two choices aggressive policing or surrender. We saw, last night, what happens when law enforcement "surrendered." Any law-abiding citizen, of any race, itching to move to Ferguson any time soon?

You want to protest? Fine. Throw things at the police and destroy public property as a statement of civil disobedience - if you're willing to stand up and say "I did it and here's why." Okay. Simple mayhem and destruction b/c you feel like you're mistreated. Not so okay.

If you want fair treatment under the law, then you need to obey it, and challenge it when it is unfairly applied to you - our system has all sorts of mechanisms for lawfully doing so without violence. If you think the law unfair, then you need to change it (like they did in the 60's). However, if you don't like the law and so refuse to obey it or obey those who enforce it, all you do is become a criminal and so continue the cycle.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

1. every parent of a black male should talk with their son at a very early age about what to do if they are stopped by a police officer. talk to them about how officers have a heightened sense of "danger and fear for their life" when an officer is near a black male such as themselves. Tell them to not give an overly nervous officer any reason what-so-ever. And then tell them that despite all of this .. they could still be shot or killed because the officer "saw the perpetrator reach for his waist band" line.

2. I trust the system in this case. this is different from trayvon martin imo which was a serious miscarriage of justice.

3. Why was brown's body laying dead 100-150 yds away from the vehicle but the officer testified that brown was 20-30 yds away when he started to charge? Why would an unarmed brown "reach for his waistband" as he was charging the officer per officer's testimony? Why does it always seem officers need to fire 8-10 rounds instead of 2-3?


sad for everyone including the officer and his family who, im sure, had no wish or intent to take another person's life when he woke up that morning.

knowing first hand how bad and corrupt police can be around here, i cant imagine how bad they are in missourri if you are a black male.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

Is Don Lemon still running around talking about the smell of weed in the air with his tear gas mask on?

Folks thats part of the problem right there

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1096021]1. every parent of a black male should talk with their son at a very early age about what to do if they are stopped by a police officer. talk to them about how officers have a heightened sense of "danger and fear for their life" when an officer is near a black male such as themselves. Tell them to not give an overly nervous officer any reason what-so-ever. And then tell them that despite all of this .. they could still be shot or killed because the officer "saw the perpetrator reach for his waist band" line.

2. I trust the system in this case. this is different from trayvon martin imo which was a serious miscarriage of justice.

3. Why was brown's body laying dead 100-150 yds away from the vehicle but the officer testified that brown was 20-30 yds away when he started to charge? Why would an unarmed brown "reach for his waistband" as he was charging the officer per officer's testimony? Why does it always seem officers need to fire 8-10 rounds instead of 2-3?


sad for everyone including the officer and his family who, im sure, had no wish or intent to take another person's life when he woke up that morning.

knowing first hand how bad and corrupt police can be around here, i cant imagine how bad they are in missourri if you are a black male.[/quote]I don't doubt that being black in america is hard. But in this case, how hard is it to teach your kids "Don't get into fist fights with police?"

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1096021]1. every parent of a black male should talk with their son at a very early age about what to do if they are stopped by a police officer. talk to them about how officers have a heightened sense of "danger and fear for their life" when an officer is near a black male such as themselves. Tell them to not give an overly nervous officer any reason what-so-ever. And then tell them that despite all of this .. they could still be shot or killed because the officer "saw the perpetrator reach for his waist band" line. <SNIP>.[/quote]

You know what? Here's what I constantly tell my (white) son:

If you are being stopped by the police, do what they say. Don't argue, don't contradict them, don't think to yourself "He can't tell me that" - particularly if there is any reason to suspect that the cop thinks you or the situation poses danger. De-escalate first by doing exactly what he/she says. Make sure the officer sees you complying and, if necessary tell him what you are doing and how you are intending to do it and then ask him for permission. Make no sudden moves!! If the officer says not to do something, then don't do it - even it means standing there and pissing your pants.

[B]The officer has a badge, a gun, and the inherent right to be confrontational - you do not!![/B]

I don't care if he insults your manhood and calls you every dirty name in the book (Which by the way, happened to me in my teen years - more than once. I grew up in PG County in the 70's/80's - need I say more?). No matter how he provokes you, say and do nothing that could be deemed an aggressive action. Shut up, take it, and return indignity with civility. Do everything in your power to get to the end of the tunnel until you can call me, a lawyer or peacefully appeal to a judge. Until then, the officer has complete, unchallengable authority - act accordingly.

BTW - When I was 16, my dad told me the same damn thing after I got picked up and taken to the station for not doing exactly what the cop told me to do, the second he told me to do it. [Picking up litter I dropped as the officer happened to be driving by - I did or said something to piss him off, don't even remember what, just know my first response was nothing akin to "Yes Sir!"]

Every parent needs to have this conversation with their kids. Period. I KNOW that there are bad cops - particularly, bad beat cops. I get that there are racist cops out there. With that said, it's the bad cops to whom you need to "Listen & Obey" the most because they are the ones looking for an excuse to abuse you AND will be the ones most experienced at covering it up.

Obey first, seek redress later. AND, recognize you may never get the redress to which you believe you are entitled. It's not right, it's not fair but it's life. At the appropriate time, and in the appropriate manner, try to change it.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1096024]Is Don Lemon still running around talking about the smell of weed in the air with his tear gas mask on?

[B]Folks thats part of the problem right there[/B][/quote]

Agreed!

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1096029]Agreed![/quote]

I wouldnt put it pass cnn to have bought used cars, dress them up like cop cars and just park them in the street near the protest. Set up molotav coctail shops like limonade stands.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1096032]I wouldnt put it pass cnn to have bought used cars, dress them up like cop cars and just park them in the street near the protest. Set up molotav coctail shops like limonade stands.[/QUOTE]

lol ... little did you know Michael Bey was producer for the coverage.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1096028]You know what? Here's what I constantly tell my (white) son:

If you are being stopped by the police, do what they say. Don't argue, don't contradict them, don't think to yourself "He can't tell me that" - particularly if there is any reason to suspect that the cop thinks you or the situation poses danger. De-escalate first by doing exactly what he/she says. Make sure the officer sees you complying and, if necessary tell him what you are doing and how you are intending to do it and then ask him for permission. Make no sudden moves!! If the officer says not to do something, then don't do it - even it means standing there and pissing your pants.

[B]The officer has a badge, a gun, and the inherent right to be confrontational - you do not!![/B]

I don't care if he insults your manhood and calls you every dirty name in the book (Which by the way, happened to me in my teen years - more than once. I grew up in PG County in the 70's/80's - need I say more?). No matter how he provokes you, say and do nothing that could be deemed an aggressive action. Shut up, take it, and return indignity with civility. Do everything in your power to get to the end of the tunnel until you can call me, a lawyer or peacefully appeal to a judge. Until then, the officer has complete, unchallengable authority - act accordingly.

BTW - When I was 16, my dad told me the same damn thing after I got picked up and taken to the station for not doing exactly what the cop told me to do, the second he told me to do it. [Picking up litter I dropped as the officer happened to be driving by - I did or said something to piss him off, don't even remember what, just know my first response was nothing akin to "Yes Sir!"]

Every parent needs to have this conversation with their kids. Period. I KNOW that there are bad cops - particularly, bad beat cops. I get that there are racist cops out there. With that said, it's the bad cops to whom you need to "Listen & Obey" the most because they are the ones looking for an excuse to abuse you AND will be the ones most experienced at covering it up.

Obey first, seek redress later. AND, recognize you may never get the redress to which you believe you are entitled. It's not right, it's not fair but it's life. At the appropriate time, and in the appropriate manner, try to change it.[/quote]

D*** my dad told me to out shout the bastards, or maybe that's just what I heard after I stopped listening.
:food-smil

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

brainwashing works through endless repetition hearing the same lie over and over again you are free you are free you are free are you free

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

Define "free."

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1095915]By all accounts, that's a true statement. At the same time, in this instance, the it appears that a thieve who punched an officer, reached into the officer's car, tried grab his gun and then got shot while charging the officer.

Could Wilson have done something differently? Probably. Could it all been avoided if Brown had not attempted to assault an officer? Most definitely.

Sorry, if you want a poster child of racial profiling by police, Michael Brown - [I]on the day in question[/I] - is not the guy.[/quote]




They are releasing some of the sworn testimony of the witness's and if true there was no other conclusion and only one stated anything about his hands being raised .Some people would rather have a dead police officer than a dead criminal .


"McCulloch said that the grand jury investigation found that some witness statements were "completely refuted by the physical evidence." He said that the biggest challenge to the investigation was rumors on social media and "the 24-hour news cycle and its appetite for something, anything, to talk about."
[url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/102214727#]Ferguson cop not indicted in shooting of Michael Brown[/url].

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1096056]Define "free."

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk[/quote]

Freedom is an illusion sponsored by Corporate America.

Re: No indictment in the mike brown case
 

Joe ...



Question ?

I realize criminal and civil trails are two different things but in your opinion how do you think a civil trail (wrongful death) would fare with the same facts and would it be better for the Officer to not have a jury trail ?