Baltimore Calmer; 6 Officers Indicted

[Jamzmania]

And what message would they be sending by failing to file charges? That the state would rather defy rioters AND peaceful protesters than potentially convict murderers?

That's why they should've charged them BEFORE riots broke out.

EDIT: That and the murder part may have been pushing it, that too.

They were still conducting tgeir investigation before the riots broke out.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not sure of exactly what you're trying to say. Perhaps you could eludicate?

Do you think looting helps whatsoever? Looting is a problem and has nothing to do with the original problem. People are definitely taking advantage of the situation.

"Helps" in what way? It's a way of striking out, of expressing anger. It's rarely constructive, but it's not like a riot is a logical and reasonable expression of grievances.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

When you have little economic significance, your best way to get attention is to strike against something with economic significance. This is the mindset behind almost all forms of protest.

And in my opinion a very wrongful mindset. They have a right to protest of course but breaking into stores and businesses and stealing from them is a big no no. I mean that once happened here in Ponce in a store my sister works and my sister and some of her coworkers were laid off because couldn't afford the loss of their equipment. I mean seriously people it's not that fucking complicated, if you wanna protest go protest peacefully like good old MLK did and don't go fucking up others people stuff.

Every time I see the line "They have a right to protest, but...", I think that I'm going to stop reading. It's a sign that the person isn't open to seriously considering why this might have happened, and is far more concerned with the aggrieved parties expressing their anger in a socially acceptable manner than they are in ensuring that the conditions that led to it aren't repeated.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not sure of exactly what you're trying to say. Perhaps you could eludicate?

I think he's saying the looters do not represent the protesters. In which he is right. We can say the looters are the bad guys and still say we support the protesters.

Of course. I'd consider it a simplistic take on the matter, but yes, you can say that.

[Novorobo]

That's why they should've charged them BEFORE riots broke out.

EDIT: That and the murder part may have been pushing it, that too.

They were still conducting tgeir investigation before the riots broke out.

Didn't they see the video before that, though? It's not enough to convict, obviously, but it should've been enough to have them charged.

[Dyakovo]

And what message would they be sending by failing to file charges? That the state would rather defy rioters AND peaceful protesters than potentially convict murderers?

They should send a message of fairness, impartiality, and refusal to bend to violent demands by trying them for more accurate and reasonable charges.

Then why don't you explain exactly why murder charges are inappropriate. Be sure to include an in-depth explanation for why the prosecutor's reasoning is wrong.

[Jamzmania]

And in my opinion a very wrongful mindset. They have a right to protest of course but breaking into stores and businesses and stealing from them is a big no no. I mean that once happened here in Ponce in a store my sister works and my sister and some of her coworkers were laid off because couldn't afford the loss of their equipment. I mean seriously people it's not that fucking complicated, if you wanna protest go protest peacefully like good old MLK did and don't go fucking up others people stuff.

Every time I see the line "They have a right to protest, but...", I think that I'm going to stop reading. It's a sign that the person isn't open to seriously considering why this might have happened, and is far more concerned with the aggrieved parties expressing their anger in a socially acceptable manner than they are in ensuring that the conditions that led to it aren't repeated.

That's because when you riot, you tend to lose a lot of credibility. There is no excuse or justification for rioting, and we should do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't happen again and the thugs dont get away with it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/6-baltimore-officers-to-face-murder-charges-in-gray-case/ar-BBj21Gr?ocid=mailsignoutmd

Isn't rewarding rioting only going to cause more of it in the long run? Seeing as how you're, you know, sending the message that rioting is effective at getting what you want?

Would refusing to charge them despite the evidence in order to show that rioting doesn't work have served the cause of justice?

[Jamzmania]

They were still conducting tgeir investigation before the riots broke out.

Didn't they see the video before that, though? It's not enough to convict, obviously, but it should've been enough to have them charged.

The video alone would not have been enough to charge, no.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Most left wing loons, maybe. Most reasonable people understand the grand jury made a fair decision considering the available evidence.

Most people who never read or heard a description of what went down there, maybe.

But then again reading and staying informed is unpopular on the right. I think they call that 'elitism'.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Indeed, considering most considered the grand jury and the investigation a farce.... No it was worse then that since the actions actually harmed the cop.

Most left wing loons, maybe. Most reasonable people understand the grand jury made a fair decision considering the available evidence.

The actions of that prosecutor were called into question by numerous legal experts, and not just on the left.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Every time I see the line "They have a right to protest, but...", I think that I'm going to stop reading. It's a sign that the person isn't open to seriously considering why this might have happened, and is far more concerned with the aggrieved parties expressing their anger in a socially acceptable manner than they are in ensuring that the conditions that led to it aren't repeated.

That's because when you riot, you tend to lose a lot of credibility. There is no excuse or justification for rioting, and we should do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't happen again and the thugs dont get away with it.

Is there an excuse for screaming in pain when your leg is broken? Automatically lashing out when you've been repeatedly attacked? Howling in rage and putting your fist through a wall when a loved one is murdered?

It's the same thing writ large, applied to the group rather than the individual.

[Jamzmania]

That's because when you riot, you tend to lose a lot of credibility. There is no excuse or justification for rioting, and we should do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't happen again and the thugs dont get away with it.

Is there an excuse for screaming in pain when your leg is broken? Automatically lashing out when you've been repeatedly attacked? Howling in rage and putting your fist through a wall when a loved one is murdered?

It's the same thing writ large, applied to the group rather than the individual.

It's not the same. At all.

[Ethel mermania]

Most left wing loons, maybe. Most reasonable people understand the grand jury made a fair decision considering the available evidence.

The actions of that prosecutor were called into question by numerous legal experts, and not just on the left.

The fbi said a charge against Wilson was not justified, so i cant see how an indightment would be justified, but that doesn't have much to do with this thread.

My question is, since Maryland has a felony murder law, does that law cover this case.?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Is there an excuse for screaming in pain when your leg is broken? Automatically lashing out when you've been repeatedly attacked? Howling in rage and putting your fist through a wall when a loved one is murdered?

It's the same thing writ large, applied to the group rather than the individual.

It's not the same. At all.

A group subjected to a series of abuses by the local police department, a group that is largely powerless to do anything about it (or who perceive themselves as such) and withstands said abuse over the course of decades, finally reaches a breaking point and lashes out in a manner that is irrational and violent when one more dies at the hands of sadistic police following highly publicized suspicious deaths in which officers were not even indicted....I can see lashing out in rage. I'm not saying that it's necessarily going to garner sympathy, but it's not meant to do so. It's meant as an expression of anger, a way of stating that a limit has been reached.

[Kanaria]

It's not the same. At all.

A group subjected to a series of abuses by the local police department, a group that is largely powerless to do anything about it (or who perceive themselves as such) and withstands said abuse over the course of decades, finally reaches a breaking point and lashes out in a manner that is irrational and violent when one more dies at the hands of sadistic police following highly publicized suspicious deaths in which officers were not even indicted....I can see lashing out in rage. I'm not saying that it's necessarily going to garner sympathy, but it's not meant to do so. It's meant as an expression of anger, a way of stating that a limit has been reached.

The problem is that people who go out of their way to complain about the riots and demand the Guard shoot 'em all is that they don't even think that the riots were not the predictable end result of anything- or, to put it another way, they don't think any of the actions which led up to this constituted abuse or disempowerment by sadists.

[Novorobo]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/6-baltimore-officers-to-face-murder-charges-in-gray-case/ar-BBj21Gr?ocid=mailsignoutmd

Isn't rewarding rioting only going to cause more of it in the long run? Seeing as how you're, you know, sending the message that rioting is effective at getting what you want?

Would refusing to charge them despite the evidence in order to show that rioting doesn't work have served the cause of justice?

By prioritizing deterrence against protesters' violence toward innocents over deterrence against cops who were at least only violent toward suspects in crimes? Yes.

[Mavorpen]

The actions of that prosecutor were called into question by numerous legal experts, and not just on the left.

The fbi said a charge against Wilson was not justified, so i cant see how an indightment would be justified, but that doesn't have much to do with this thread.

My question is, since Maryland has a felony murder law, does that law cover this case.?

Did they? The FBI was only trying to determine whether there was a case for a Civil Rights charge, not necessarily simply a charge for homicide, etc. I could be wrong though.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The actions of that prosecutor were called into question by numerous legal experts, and not just on the left.

The fbi said a charge against Wilson was not justified, so i cant see how an indightment would be justified, but that doesn't have much to do with this thread.

My question is, since Maryland has a felony murder law, does that law cover this case.?

Regardless of Wilson's guilt or innocence, the prosecutor's actions were unethical and unprofessional.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Would refusing to charge them despite the evidence in order to show that rioting doesn't work have served the cause of justice?

By prioritizing deterrence against protesters' violence toward innocents over deterrence against cops who were at least only violent toward suspects in crimes? Yes.

Yes, and as we all know, suspects in custody don't have Constitutional rights that must be protected.

Seriously, in attempting to show your disdain for the mob, you have instead, ironically, shown a disdain and disregard for the rule of law.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A group subjected to a series of abuses by the local police department, a group that is largely powerless to do anything about it (or who perceive themselves as such) and withstands said abuse over the course of decades, finally reaches a breaking point and lashes out in a manner that is irrational and violent when one more dies at the hands of sadistic police following highly publicized suspicious deaths in which officers were not even indicted....I can see lashing out in rage. I'm not saying that it's necessarily going to garner sympathy, but it's not meant to do so. It's meant as an expression of anger, a way of stating that a limit has been reached.

The problem is that people who go out of their way to complain about the riots and demand the Guard shoot 'em all is that they don't even think that the riots were not the predictable end result of anything- or, to put it another way, they don't think any of the actions which led up to this constituted abuse or disempowerment by sadists.

Exactly. That it just occurred in a vacuum, out of nowhere, or was an overreaction to a single event. There's no context or attempt to understand how it could happen, which is sad, as that's the only way that we can possibly keep it from happening later.

[Jamzmania]

The fbi said a charge against Wilson was not justified, so i cant see how an indightment would be justified, but that doesn't have much to do with this thread.

My question is, since Maryland has a felony murder law, does that law cover this case.?

Regardless of Wilson's guilt or innocence, the prosecutor's actions were unethical and unprofessional.

It would have been more unethical to force through an indictment against a man he felt was not able to be convicted.

[The Lone Alliance]

Do you think looting helps whatsoever? Looting is a problem and has nothing to do with the original problem. People are definitely taking advantage of the situation.

"Helps" in what way? It's a way of striking out, of expressing anger. It's rarely constructive, but it's not like a riot is a logical and reasonable expression of grievances.

No Looting is not striking out, looting is "Law and order has collapsed time for me to get a New TV"

Don't even pretend to give looters a moral high ground because they have none. I have zero sympathy for them, they are choosing to attack innocent people.

When you break into the property of the innocent and you destroy their lively hood and rob them you aren't protesting, you aren't venting, you are stealing.

[Mavorpen]

Regardless of Wilson's guilt or innocence, the prosecutor's actions were unethical and unprofessional.

It would have been more unethical to force through an indictment against a man he felt was not able to be convicted.

Doing his job correctly would have been forcing through an indictment?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Regardless of Wilson's guilt or innocence, the prosecutor's actions were unethical and unprofessional.

It would have been more unethical to force through an indictment against a man he felt was not able to be convicted.

It would have been ethical to represent the interests of the state in the matter, and not intentionally sabotage the indictment process through giving inaccurate legal information to the jurors, refusing to explain, and dumping enormous amounts of information in their laps without any context given. It would have been ethical for him to challenge all of the witnesses, not just the ones favorable to the prosecution, and to not handhold defense witnesses. But I'm sure that prosecutorial misconduct is okay when it's for the police, right?