Ferguson Megathread

[Kravanica]

The part of the narrative of institutionalized killing of blacks or institutionalized "turning a blind eye" that doesn't add up is that it was not the system which failed here: evidence was brought before a grand jury to determine whether or not to indict the cop. Last time I checked a jury is formed not of supposedly corrupt or racist bureaucrats or government employees, but, *gasp* random citizens who are eligible. Yet somehow the police / judiciary are still to blame here for whatever reason amirite?

Is the grand jury anonymous? Is it even all white?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... rand-jury/

Ah yes, ThinkProgress, the site that runs front page articles saying that conservatives should leave the country.

Doesn't get more objective, unbiased, and truthful than that.

[Kravanica]

Not really interested in doing that right now but will gladly listen, if you want to tell me that is.

Is a decision to indict made by unanimous vote as with verdicts?

I don't know if it needs to be unanimous. in most states the grand jury is GRAND because there are 18 jurors and the decision (its not a verdict) doesn't need to be unanimous. Missouri has its own rules.

the grand jury is ONLY for the purpose of making sure that there is enough evidence to indict. they don't weight evidence, they don't hear from the accused, they don't hear from all witnesses or see all evidence. they are given the basics and whatever amount of evidence that is needed to show that it is reasonable to send the accused to trial. it takes at most one day. its only there to keep the prosecutors from using their office to punish their enemies or harass unliked minorities.

And in this case, the evidence to send the accused to trial was shitty.

[Dyakovo]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... rand-jury/

Ah yes, ThinkProgress, the site that runs front page articles saying that conservatives should leave the country.

Doesn't get more objective, unbiased, and truthful than that.

Here's another source with Scalia saying that exact same thing.

[Dyakovo]

I don't know if it needs to be unanimous. in most states the grand jury is GRAND because there are 18 jurors and the decision (its not a verdict) doesn't need to be unanimous. Missouri has its own rules.

the grand jury is ONLY for the purpose of making sure that there is enough evidence to indict. they don't weight evidence, they don't hear from the accused, they don't hear from all witnesses or see all evidence. they are given the basics and whatever amount of evidence that is needed to show that it is reasonable to send the accused to trial. it takes at most one day. its only there to keep the prosecutors from using their office to punish their enemies or harass unliked minorities.

And in this case, the evidence to send the accused to trial was shitty.

No, it wasn't. As Justice Scalia and many other lawyers have stated.

[Kravanica]

And in this case, the evidence to send the accused to trial was shitty.

No, it wasn't. As Justice Scalia and many other lawyers have stated.

Your own source says that Scalia didn't comment directly on the ruling.

The autopsy report coupled with the eyewitness accounts only serve to verify that Wilson shot Brown in self-defense. Also these people marching in the streets chanting "Hands up, don't shoot!" are morons.

[The UK in Exile]

No, it wasn't. As Justice Scalia and many other lawyers have stated.

Your own source says that Scalia didn't comment directly on the ruling.

The autopsy report coupled with the eyewitness accounts only serve to verify that Wilson shot Brown in self-defense. Also these people marching in the streets chanting "Hands up, don't shoot!" are morons.

because we all know that won't stop them.

[Greed and Death]

Ah yes, ThinkProgress, the site that runs front page articles saying that conservatives should leave the country.

Doesn't get more objective, unbiased, and truthful than that.

Here's another source with Scalia saying that exact same thing.

He said it in a legal case back in 1992, and not directly related the case at hand.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

And again just because a prosecutor is not required to produce exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, does not mean he is barred from presenting exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.

[Kravanica]

Your own source says that Scalia didn't comment directly on the ruling.

The autopsy report coupled with the eyewitness accounts only serve to verify that Wilson shot Brown in self-defense. Also these people marching in the streets chanting "Hands up, don't shoot!" are morons.

because we all know that won't stop them.

Huh?

[Dyakovo]

Here's another source with Scalia saying that exact same thing.

He said it in a legal case back in 1992, and not directly related the case at hand.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

And again just because a prosecutor is not required to produce exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, does not mean he is barred from presenting exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.

I'm aware. Apparently you don't understand the point I've been making, which is that McCullough did everything he could to ensure that the grand jury did not indict. I guess my saying it several times was quite clear enough for you.

[Sanctissima]

Meanwhile, in North Korea...

The North Korean government has issued a statement referring to the United States as a "human rights graveyard".

Just thought I'd put that out there.

[The UK in Exile]

because we all know that won't stop them.

Huh?

If it didn't save Michael Brown, it won't help the marchers.

[Greed and Death]

He said it in a legal case back in 1992, and not directly related the case at hand.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

And again just because a prosecutor is not required to produce exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, does not mean he is barred from presenting exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.

I'm aware. Apparently you don't understand the point I've been making, which is that McCullough did everything he could to ensure that the grand jury did not indict. I guess my saying it several times was quite clear enough for you.

That is fairly within the prosecutor's discretion.

Also the case speaks to Federal not state grand juries, states are free to give defendants the right to testify.

If the prosecutor decides it is in the state's best interest to nip it in the bud at the grand jury stage rather than waste money on a trial that is his call to make.

[Lytenburgh]

Ex-members of Pussy Riot who took part in protests in New York are demanded to be deprived of US visas

Former members of the Russian punk group Pussy Riot were at the center of a scandal in the United States due to their participation in New York's protests against the police brutality (the reason was the murder of a young black man by police of Ferguson). After that, on the White House Web site appeared a petition to revoke their US visas so that they could no longer interfere in the internal affairs of Americans.

"Russian activists from the band "Pussy Riot" - Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina, Peter Verzilov - came to U.S. to promote vulgar, immoral, anti-Christian way of life and values. In Russia, they were convicted for shocking, offensive, immoral action in Christ the Savior Cathedral." - the document says.

Next, the text says that "Americans respect any position," but the Russians participation in unsanctioned protests in New York, was "the last straw of our patience"...

Ex-Pussies were quite blatant and didn't even attempted to hide their involvemnet in protest - posting selfies of their precious selves and twitting right and left.

[The UK in Exile]

Ex-members of Pussy Riot who took part in protests in New York are demanded to be deprived of US visas

Former members of the Russian punk group Pussy Riot were at the center of a scandal in the United States due to their participation in New York's protests against the police brutality (the reason was the murder of a young black man by police of Ferguson). After that, on the White House Web site appeared a petition to revoke their US visas so that they could no longer interfere in the internal affairs of Americans.

"Russian activists from the band "Pussy Riot" - Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina, Peter Verzilov - came to U.S. to promote vulgar, immoral, anti-Christian way of life and values. In Russia, they were convicted for shocking, offensive, immoral action in Christ the Savior Cathedral." - the document says.

Next, the text says that "Americans respect any position," but the Russians participation in unsanctioned protests in New York, was "the last straw of our patience"...

Ex-Pussies were quite blatant and didn't even attempted to hide their involvemnet in protest - posting selfies of their precious selves and twitting right and left.

Perhaps they believed they had the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the US?

[Lytenburgh]

Perhaps they believed they had the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the US?

Well, Madam Secretary gave them very warm welcome once...



Looks like, they've overstayed their welcome in the Bastion of Democracy. Remember kids! Violations of rights and infridgement of democracy is something happening only to other countries!

[The balkens]

Perhaps they believed they had the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the US?

Well, Madam Secretary gave them very warm welcome once...



Looks like, they've overstayed their welcome in the Bastion of Democracy. Remember kids! Violations of rights and infridgement of democracy is something happening only to other countries!

What the fuck are you on about now?

[Avenio]

Well, Madam Secretary gave them very warm welcome once...



Looks like, they've overstayed their welcome in the Bastion of Democracy. Remember kids! Violations of rights and infridgement of democracy is something happening only to other countries!

What the fuck are you on about now?

Lyttenburgh's fishing for reasons to bash the US. The fact that the petition is itself a form of protected free speech and merely represents the opinions of some 400 or so people in a nation of 300 million is entirely irrelevant to him.

[The Cobalt Sky]

What the fuck are you on about now?

Lyttenburgh's fishing for reasons to bash the US. The fact that the petition is itself a form of protected free speech and merely represents the opinions of some 400 or so people in a nation of 300 million is entirely irrelevant to him.

Is anyone even arguing about the topic anymore?

[The Fascist American Empire]

Question: if it's considered free speech for teabaggers to speak of violence against government officials, why isn't it considered free speech for Michael Brown's stepfather to say "burn this bitch down"?

Because when good, conservative christian souls are speaking of committing violent acts against the government, they are defenders of justice standing up to the evil, demonic forces of liberal fascist communistic dictatorial socialists. When a minority does it, they are an evil thuggish opportunistic chaotic terrorist that hates democracy and feels everyone should work to support their lifestyle like the leech they are, and they are attacking the true defenders of civility, honor and all around champions of democracy, the police. And when the police shoot them for lying about being mistreated, they deserve it, cause, you know, they are just a bunch of good for nothing thugs.

Didn't ya know?

At least, I think that is how conservatives ( where I believe the overwhelming source of most of the support of what I see as police brutality receives come from )see these type of situations.

Quick question. In what universe are all conservatives the extreme right wing, at which point is no longer even conservative as according to every political scale. Please note, I would be asking the same thing if you had badmouthed liberals. Even if I disagree with most politicians of both parties to some degree, they still deserve respect... Regardless of how stupid they may be.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Because when good, conservative christian souls are speaking of committing violent acts against the government, they are defenders of justice standing up to the evil, demonic forces of liberal fascist communistic dictatorial socialists. When a minority does it, they are an evil thuggish opportunistic chaotic terrorist that hates democracy and feels everyone should work to support their lifestyle like the leech they are, and they are attacking the true defenders of civility, honor and all around champions of democracy, the police. And when the police shoot them for lying about being mistreated, they deserve it, cause, you know, they are just a bunch of good for nothing thugs.

Didn't ya know?

At least, I think that is how conservatives ( where I believe the overwhelming source of most of the support of what I see as police brutality receives come from )see these type of situations.

Quick question. In what universe are all conservatives the extreme right wing, at which point is no longer even conservative as according to every political scale. Please note, I would be asking the same thing if you had badmouthed liberals. Even if I disagree with most politicians of both parties to some degree, they still deserve respect... Regardless of how stupid they may be.

I don't think all politicians deserve respect because I doubt all of them actually represent the people. But I guess which do and which don't is in the eye of the beholder, so I guess you're right.

[The Serbian Empire]

Has the rioting stopped yet?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Has the rioting stopped yet?

In Ferguson itself? Yeah. A couple of cold, wet days will do that.

[Jinos]

Update:

Apparently the prosecution intentionally misled the Grand Jury by telling them that according to law, a police officer may use any force to stop a fleeing suspect.

(Said law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

When asked about this by a juror, the assistant prosecuting attorney dodged the question.

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/fer ... ion-video/

I think it seems very clear, based on everything that is coming out about this grand jury, that the prosecution rigged the hearing to intentionally make an indictment unlikely. Luckily, Darren Wilson can still be charged with murder, since he has never been formally indicted.

[Greed and Death]

Update:

Apparently the prosecution intentionally misled the Grand Jury by telling them that according to law, a police officer may use any force to stop a fleeing suspect.

(Said law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

When asked about this by a juror, the assistant prosecuting attorney dodged the question.

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/fer ... ion-video/

I think it seems very clear, based on everything that is coming out about this grand jury, that the prosecution rigged the hearing to intentionally make an indictment unlikely. Luckily, Darren Wilson can still be charged with murder, since he has never been formally indicted.

You source oversimplifies the issue and a long story short the ADA likely gave correct instructions.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Update:

Apparently the prosecution intentionally misled the Grand Jury by telling them that according to law, a police officer may use any force to stop a fleeing suspect.

h (Said law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

When asked about this by a juror, the assistant prosecuting attorney dodged the question.

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/fer ... ion-video/

I think it seems very clear, based on everything that is coming out about this grand jury, that the prosecution rigged the hearing to intentionally make an indictment unlikely. Luckily, Darren Wilson can still be charged with murder, since he has never been formally indicted.

You source oversimplifies the issue and a long story short the ADA likely gave correct instructions.

How about long story medium, so you explain how correct information was given, and don't expect us to take you at your word?