Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

You're gonna believe what you want, and nothing I say is going to change your mind. That's the way humans are wired. .

Boy, you can say that again.

One thing I've had reinforced from this thread is that objective truth doesn't exist. That suggests that many social problems plaguing humanity are completely intractable. Reptile-brain tribalism -- and all issues of individual identity that spring from it -- will ultimately control mankind forever.

it's always been that way. Read A Passage To India by EM Forster. Or read Rashoman, the Japanese play. Objective truth in human affairs doesn't exist.

If it doesn't then what is that thing around which we all dance?

The mosh pit?

 

[Todem]

You're gonna believe what you want, and nothing I say is going to change your mind. That's the way humans are wired. .

Boy, you can say that again.

One thing I've had reinforced from this thread is that objective truth doesn't exist. That suggests that many social problems plaguing humanity are completely intractable. Reptile-brain tribalism -- and all issues of individual identity that spring from it -- will ultimately control mankind forever.

Agreed. It's never going to change. We are all in tribes. Just call it like it is.

 

[Doug B]

It involves facts relating to ballistics, crime scene investigation ...

Really can't advance or resolve a debate if even what constitutes "a fact" is itself in dispute.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

You're gonna believe what you want, and nothing I say is going to change your mind. That's the way humans are wired. .

Boy, you can say that again.

One thing I've had reinforced from this thread is that objective truth doesn't exist. That suggests that many social problems plaguing humanity are completely intractable. Reptile-brain tribalism -- and all issues of individual identity that spring from it -- will ultimately control mankind forever.

Yes. See this thread for further discussion on that topic.

 

[Todem]

It involves facts relating to ballistics, crime scene investigation ...

Really can't advance or resolve a debate if even what constitutes "a fact" is itself in dispute.

Yeah...I figured that out about 50 pages ago with Tim (who is a decent person) and some of the other moronic trolls here.

And Tim seems like a good guy....but one I would never get along with. Indecisive people are the bane of my world. I have no time nor any patience for indecisive people. Annoying to the core (no offense Tim you post some good things and are well spoken so take it with a grain of salt it is simply a personality thing).

 

[CowboysFromHell]

It involves facts relating to ballistics, crime scene investigation ...

Really can't advance or resolve a debate if even what constitutes "a fact" is itself in dispute.

Yeah...I figured that out about 50 pages ago with Tim (who is a decent person) and some of the other moronic trolls here.

And Tim seems like a good guy....but one I would never get along with. Indecisive people are the bane of my world. I have no time nor any patience for indecisive people. Annoying to the core.

Are you sure about that?

 

[FlapJacks]

The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.

larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?

There are plenty of gestures that you can make on an NFL field that will get you disciplined.

Yeah, free speech may be the most misunderstood concept in the country.

The Rams are completely within their rights to cut or bench anybody who does the "hands up don't shoot" thing. But it is also a fact of life that people will naturally tend to have opinions about hot-button issues in their community, and perhaps it's a good idea to allow those folks to blow off a little steam by expressing them openly. I don't agree with the message, but it's not like it's some weird, off-the-wall offensive viewpoint that I can't put up with for a couple of seconds while waiting for the kickoff.

They are completely within their rights to do it, but what would be their incentive? How did we get to the point where an employer would have an incentive to squelch free speech? How did a mindset where people actually think intheir minds "I don't like those opinions, so I'm not going to buy a ticket to the game." When did such totalitarian/fascist thinking become to be considered so normal and even acceptable behavior that it is catered to? When did we become a fascist society?

 

[TobiasFunke]

So, we are currently left at an impasse of sorts. Let's advance this discussion. The following will be a little long. Anyone/everyone is free to correct any facts I may have wrong and offer up any feedback.

...

11. Wilson testified and to our knowledge had never fired his weapon during his five year career which was spent patrolling predominantly black neighborhoods. He had never received any complaints or allegations of abuse, excessive use of force. He also testified to using non lethal force in previous incidents. Clearly, this isn't a guy looking to gun down a black kid and he clearly opted to use non lethal force in previous incidents.

If anyone wants to engage in some serious dialogue on this post, I would welcome it. At this point in time, I really have nothing more to say unless someone wants to offer up some alternative scenarios/contrary facts to what I just presented.

This one is false. Here's video footage of Wilson telling someone that he's going to "lock their ### up" for taking a video of him- something that people clearly have a right to do under the Constitution (and, Constitution aside, because accountability is a good thing). He then subsequently did just that. He also fabricated a charge about a violation of laws related to pit bulls even though the guy just had a bulldog, which makes him either a dishonest cop or the dumbest man in America. Anyway, arresting someone because they tried to record you is a pretty sleazy thing for a cop to do.

By the way, when asked about the video the Ferguson PD straight-up lied about it being Wilson on the recording. Combine that with the long delay in naming him in an otherwise disastrous and evasive press conference, the scrubbing of any record of Wilson's existence from social media and God knows what else during the period between the incident and the press conference, and the Ferguson PD arresting and tear-gassing media during their crackdown on the protests, and you start to get a sense of why the community maybe doesn't trust the narrative of the incident that you've presented.

 

[Todem]

It involves facts relating to ballistics, crime scene investigation ...

Really can't advance or resolve a debate if even what constitutes "a fact" is itself in dispute.

Yeah...I figured that out about 50 pages ago with Tim (who is a decent person) and some of the other moronic trolls here.

And Tim seems like a good guy....but one I would never get along with. Indecisive people are the bane of my world. I have no time nor any patience for indecisive people. Annoying to the core.

Are you sure about that?

LOL!!!

 

[timschochet]

I totally get how people can be certain about their core beliefs-I am. But I don't understand how people can be certain about incidents like this one, in which none of us witnessed it and most of what we think we know is based on testimony, not all of which matches up . It's perfectly fine to offer opinions based on this, but it's also perfectly fine , and honest, to say "this is what I think happened, but I don't know for sure, and I'm open to learning new facts or hearing compelling arguments that could change my mind." That doesn't make me indecisive, IMO.

 

[Todd Andrews]

And while few of us would think to ridicule Jews for still harboring less than warm feelings for Germans some 70 years laterwe would understand the lack of trust, the wariness, even the angerwe apparently find it hard to understand the same historically embedded logic of black trepidation and contempt for law enforcement in this country.

I don't know any Jews that harbor resentment towards Germans.

Boy, I do.

Kids and young adults too? I cant think of a single instance I have ever heard anything like that. Not even jokingly.

I wont buy some makes of German cars because they were Hitler mobiles. A lot of people still hate both Germans and Germany because of WWII and the holocaust, and many are not Jewish.

You hate Germany? How old are you?

Yes and 45. Some of my family were killed in the Holocaust. Should I not hate Germany?

 

[jonessed]

It involves facts relating to ballistics, crime scene investigation ...

Really can't advance or resolve a debate if even what constitutes "a fact" is itself in dispute.

Nobody is really in a position to discredit the GJ decision. They obviously had access to more facts and information in context than anyone here. Everybody else is just cherry-picking pieces of what they already saw.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Objective truth in human affairs doesn't exist.

This statement is definitely wrong because it's self-refuting. You're trying to claim that it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. Its not logically possible for that to be correct.

 

[Doug B]

But I don't understand how people can be certain about incidents like this one, in which none of us witnessed it and most of what we think we know is based on testimony, not all of which matches up .

All it really is, if you ask me, is that certainty about this particular case (and most all others) doesn't cost anyone anything. There's no real downside, and one can take whatever side one prefers to bolster one's own personal worldview.

And even with that, it's not true personal-witness certainty -- something that someone actually perceives or undergoes directly -- that people are offering up. It's not like if Darren Wilson went on Oprah tomorrow and told her live on camera "I was full of it ... I really woke up that morning aiming to kill the first African-American that bugged me that day. Yes, I did. I really did. I shot that kid in cold blood for no reason -- and I'm here to tell it to the world." ... that his defenders in this thread would deny his words and say "No ... I don't know why Wilson is saying that, but he's wrong. That's not true ... that's not how it went down." The second-hand certainty in that case would simply flip.

 

[timschochet]

Objective truth in human affairs doesn't exist.

This statement is definitely wrong because it's self-refuting. You're trying to claim that it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. Its not logically possible for that to be correct.

You 're correct. So let me restate: objective truth in human affairs is almost impossible to ascertain. In practical terms, it doesn't exist.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Objective truth in human affairs doesn't exist.

This statement is definitely wrong because it's self-refuting. You're trying to claim that it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. Its not logically possible for that to be correct.

You 're correct. So let me restate: objective truth in human affairs is almost impossible to ascertain. In practical terms, it doesn't exist.

"Doesn't exist" isn't the same thing as "unknowable.". There exists an objectively true account of what went down between Brown and Wilson. The problem is that none of us has or could have access to it.

 

[saintsfan]

I am very disturbed by the continued false narrative of the "hands up, don't shoot." Whatever you think happened, I think it is VERY clear that Officer Wilson DID NOT shoot Michael Brown in the back when he had his hands up. It didn't happen that way and for people to continue to use that symbol is shameful and embarrassing.

Just read the witnesses reports and the forensics. It is not fair for this Officer to go down for every bad cop who ever mistreated a black man.

Michael Brown made many bad decisions that night and I don't know why it's so unlikely he wouldn't stop when Officer Wilson told him to, even if the officer was pointing a gun at him. He tried to take a gun from the officer to begin with. Forensics backs up that claim too.

I understand the outrage in the black community about some cops treatment of black men, but man do I think they rallied around the wrong cause this time.

 

[StrikeS2k]

New Black Panthers seem to be really nice.

ST. LOUIS - Two members of the New Black Panther Party arrested last week on federal weapons charges were planning to bomb the Gateway Arch, and to kill St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch and Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson, sources tell NewsChannel 5.

The men, identified in an indictment as Brandon Baldwin and Olajuwon Davis, are said to have given false information and bought guns from the Cabellas in Hazelwood, Missouri.

Baldwin and Davis were arrested November 20.

Sources tell NewsChannel 5 that Baldwin and Davis were being investigated for months. The suspects were aggressively pursuing explosive devices.

Chief Jackson said he "was warned about a plot" by federal agents, but was "not given a lot of detail."

NewsChannel 5 will have more information on this story as it becomes available.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/ferguson/2014/11/26/sources-plot-to-bomb-arch-kill-mcculloch/19565733/

Man those two guys from Philly really stepping it up - Progressing from voter intimidation to murder. They sure do get around!!

 

[timschochet]

New Black Panthers seem to be really nice.

ST. LOUIS - Two members of the New Black Panther Party arrested last week on federal weapons charges were planning to bomb the Gateway Arch, and to kill St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch and Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson, sources tell NewsChannel 5.

The men, identified in an indictment as Brandon Baldwin and Olajuwon Davis, are said to have given false information and bought guns from the Cabellas in Hazelwood, Missouri.

Baldwin and Davis were arrested November 20.

Sources tell NewsChannel 5 that Baldwin and Davis were being investigated for months. The suspects were aggressively pursuing explosive devices.

Chief Jackson said he "was warned about a plot" by federal agents, but was "not given a lot of detail."

NewsChannel 5 will have more information on this story as it becomes available.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/ferguson/2014/11/26/sources-plot-to-bomb-arch-kill-mcculloch/19565733/

Man those two guys from Philly really stepping it up - Progressing from voter intimidation to murder. They sure do get around!!

OK so maybe it's not exactly the same two guys. But they probably know each other.

 

[SIDA!]

So, we are currently left at an impasse of sorts. Let's advance this discussion. The following will be a little long. Anyone/everyone is free to correct any facts I may have wrong and offer up any feedback.

...

11. Wilson testified and to our knowledge had never fired his weapon during his five year career which was spent patrolling predominantly black neighborhoods. He had never received any complaints or allegations of abuse, excessive use of force. He also testified to using non lethal force in previous incidents. Clearly, this isn't a guy looking to gun down a black kid and he clearly opted to use non lethal force in previous incidents.

If anyone wants to engage in some serious dialogue on this post, I would welcome it. At this point in time, I really have nothing more to say unless someone wants to offer up some alternative scenarios/contrary facts to what I just presented.

This one is false. Here's video footage of Wilson telling someone that he's going to "lock their ### up" for taking a video of him- something that people clearly have a right to do under the Constitution (and, Constitution aside, because accountability is a good thing). He then subsequently did just that. He also fabricated a charge about a violation of laws related to pit bulls even though the guy just had a bulldog, which makes him either a dishonest cop or the dumbest man in America. Anyway, arresting someone because they tried to record you is a pretty sleazy thing for a cop to do.

By the way, when asked about the video the Ferguson PD straight-up lied about it being Wilson on the recording. Combine that with the long delay in naming him in an otherwise disastrous and evasive press conference, the scrubbing of any record of Wilson's existence from social media and God knows what else during the period between the incident and the press conference, and the Ferguson PD arresting and tear-gassing media during their crackdown on the protests, and you start to get a sense of why the community maybe doesn't trust the narrative of the incident that you've presented.

Tobias:

I agree that that is a pretty sleazy thing to do. I hate when cops pull the "you can't film me" card. I pretty much believe this to be an offense where an officer should be suspended or terminated, ideally terminated.

With that said, I was specifically referencing any allegations that Wilson may have had a propensity to tune people up from time to time. We all know that there are officers with heavy hands that will use force at the slightest provocation even if they know it is not necessary, but can be justified.

As far as the community not trusting the narrative of the incident, I totally get why some people would be skeptical. I think it is fair for minority communities to be skeptical because I believe without any reservation that incidents of misconduct by police officers happen often. I am not a "law and order" white male Republican who thinks cops are saints and the rest of us "had it coming". Though I can't prove it, I believe Wilson rolled up on Brown and didn't exactly ask Brown to politely get out of the street, pretty please with a cherry on top. And I DON'T believe the notion that he felt the next punch to the face could have been fatal or that he felt like a 5 year old in the grips of Hulk Hogan. In fairness, he added that the next punch could have knocked him out and then who knows if Brown would have killed him (I do agree with this). However, I think these are unnecessary, perhaps coached statements, to justify the shooting and I don't believe he even needed to add those to his testimony.

I don't care how big you are, if a suspect is 6'5" and nearly 300 pounds hitting you in the face and close enough so that when you do manage to fire a shot the suspects DNA/body matter is on you and the interior of the vehicle, it is a justified shooting.

It is okay to distrust the narrative or to be skeptical. In fact, we should all be somewhat skeptical whenever a member of the state takes the life of a citizen. But, there is nothing that I can see from the forensics, physical evidence, etc. that really opens a window to a different scenario. Your rebuttal to my comment centered primarily on a rebuttal of my statements made outside the events that transpired...my character defense of Wilson, if you will.

Did you disagree or have any qualms with any other aspect of my post?

 

[Gary Coal Man]

I am very disturbed by the continued false narrative of the "hands up, don't shoot." Whatever you think happened, I think it is VERY clear that Officer Wilson DID NOT shoot Michael Brown in the back when he had his hands up. It didn't happen that way and for people to continue to use that symbol is shameful and embarrassing.

On that topic, this guy's similar reaction to you had me chuckling...

California school's Ferguson 'grief' sessions blasted by former regentUniversity of California-Irvine missed out on a true teachable moment last week when it offered up psychological counseling instead of legal lessons for students in the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision, according to one outspoken former regent.

Following the decision, in which a grand jury declined to indict Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, the school sent a notice to students offering help with “healing, grieving and support” at the school’s counseling center.


“If they really wanted to have a teachable moment of understanding the facts of the case as they were presented to the grand jury, that would be one thing,” said Ward Connerly, who was a member of the University of California’s Board of Regents from 1993-2005. “But this isn’t about processing facts. It’s about processing the emotions of what you have been told about the case.”

Connerly noted that the grand jury arrived at its decision after hearing from witnesses who said Brown, who had moments earlier been caught on surveillance video robbing a store, tussled with Wilson through his squad car window, then later charged at him.

Having a counseling session to “process” the decision, with the help of UCI Counseling Center Senior Staff Psychologist Dr. Vivian Tamkin and UCI Counseling Center Post-Doctoral Fellow Dr. Milo Dodson, was a tacit endorsement of a version of events rejected by the grand jury, Connerly said.

A school spokeswoman defended the session, which took place Nov. 25 and drew about 80 students and faculty members.

“On Tuesday afternoon, UC Irvine’s counseling center offered students an opportunity to talk through their feelings about the Ferguson grand jury’s decision in a constructive space,” Laura Rico said in an email. “UC Irvine hosts many targeted co-curricular activities for students, which in no way detract from studies, including any instruction students may receive on the law. The UCI counseling center’s goal is to provide outreach and support in many formats. This facilitated discussion of a high-profile event is one way to do just that.”

Connerly, who is now chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, was skeptical that students in California needed specialists to help them cope with the case.

“What’s surprising to me is how individuals 2,000 miles away can somehow get really emotionally attached to this verdict, which leads me to believe it is somewhat make-believe,” Connerly said. “The notion that they can get all riled up to the extent that they need psychological help is really pushing the envelope.”

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am very disturbed by the continued false narrative of the "hands up, don't shoot." Whatever you think happened, I think it is VERY clear that Officer Wilson DID NOT shoot Michael Brown in the back when he had his hands up. It didn't happen that way and for people to continue to use that symbol is shameful and embarrassing.

Just read the witnesses reports and the forensics. It is not fair for this Officer to go down for every bad cop who ever mistreated a black man.

Michael Brown made many bad decisions that night and I don't know why it's so unlikely he wouldn't stop when Officer Wilson told him to, even if the officer was pointing a gun at him. He tried to take a gun from the officer to begin with. Forensics backs up that claim too.

I understand the outrage in the black community about some cops treatment of black men, but man do I think they rallied around the wrong cause this time.

The gesture isn't a protest of what happened to Brown, it's a protest of law enforcement treatment of black people in general. Even if you isolate the narrative to Ferguson, protestors and many other innocent citizens by the hundreds looked down the barrel of police weapons with their hands in the air. Here's the most famous of many such images.

As for whether this is the "wrong cause," I've posted several different times as to why I think this incident was the one that took off and became a cause instead of, say, Oscar Grant or Eric Garner or even Tamir Rice. Here's my most recent post on it. Obviously I'm just one outsider and I can't speak for a movement, but I think it's very clear that this isn't just about what happened between Brown and Wilson any more than, say, WWII was about Pearl Harbor. The shooting was just the incident that touched off the outrage, not the sole basis for it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So, we are currently left at an impasse of sorts. Let's advance this discussion. The following will be a little long. Anyone/everyone is free to correct any facts I may have wrong and offer up any feedback.

...

11. Wilson testified and to our knowledge had never fired his weapon during his five year career which was spent patrolling predominantly black neighborhoods. He had never received any complaints or allegations of abuse, excessive use of force. He also testified to using non lethal force in previous incidents. Clearly, this isn't a guy looking to gun down a black kid and he clearly opted to use non lethal force in previous incidents.

If anyone wants to engage in some serious dialogue on this post, I would welcome it. At this point in time, I really have nothing more to say unless someone wants to offer up some alternative scenarios/contrary facts to what I just presented.

This one is false. Here's video footage of Wilson telling someone that he's going to "lock their ### up" for taking a video of him- something that people clearly have a right to do under the Constitution (and, Constitution aside, because accountability is a good thing). He then subsequently did just that. He also fabricated a charge about a violation of laws related to pit bulls even though the guy just had a bulldog, which makes him either a dishonest cop or the dumbest man in America. Anyway, arresting someone because they tried to record you is a pretty sleazy thing for a cop to do.

By the way, when asked about the video the Ferguson PD straight-up lied about it being Wilson on the recording. Combine that with the long delay in naming him in an otherwise disastrous and evasive press conference, the scrubbing of any record of Wilson's existence from social media and God knows what else during the period between the incident and the press conference, and the Ferguson PD arresting and tear-gassing media during their crackdown on the protests, and you start to get a sense of why the community maybe doesn't trust the narrative of the incident that you've presented.

Tobias:

I agree that that is a pretty sleazy thing to do. I hate when cops pull the "you can't film me" card. With that said, I was specifically referencing any allegations that Wilson may have had a propensity to tune people up from time to time. We all know that there are officers with heavy hands that will use force at the slightest provocation even if they know it is not necessary, but can be justified.

As far as the community not trusting the narrative of the incident, I totally get why some people would be skeptical. I think it is fair for minority communities to be skeptical because I believe without any reservation that incidents of misconduct by police officers happen often. I am not a "law and order" white male Republican who thinks cops are saints and the rest of us "had it coming". Though I can't prove it, I believe Wilson rolled up on Brown and didn't exactly ask Brown to politely get out of the street, pretty please with a cherry on top. And I believe the notion that he felt the next punch to the face could have been fatal or that he felt like a 5 year old in the grips of Hulk Hogan. In fairness, he added that the next punch could have knocked him out and then who knows if Brown would have killed him (I do agree with this). However, I think these are unnecessary, perhaps coached statements, to justify the shooting and I don't believe he even needed to add those to his testimony.

I don't care how big you are, if a suspect is 6'5" and nearly 300 pounds hitting you in the face and close enough so that when you do manage to fire a shot the suspects DNA/body matter is on you and the interior of the vehicle, it is a justified shooting.

It is okay to distrust the narrative or to be skeptical. In fact, we should all be somewhat skeptical whenever a member of the state takes the life of a citizen. But, there is nothing that I can see from the forensics, physical evidence, etc. that really opens a window to a different scenario. Your rebuttal to my comment centered primarily on a rebuttal of my statements made outside the events that transpired...my character defense of Wilson, if you will.

Did you disagree or have any qualms with any other aspect of my post?

Nope. I haven't really done a detailed review of the forensics and I'm not really qualified to interpret the information anyway. I'm trying to stay out of that part of it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

New Black Panthers seem to be really nice.

ST. LOUIS - Two members of the New Black Panther Party arrested last week on federal weapons charges were planning to bomb the Gateway Arch, and to kill St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch and Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson, sources tell NewsChannel 5.

The men, identified in an indictment as Brandon Baldwin and Olajuwon Davis, are said to have given false information and bought guns from the Cabellas in Hazelwood, Missouri.

Baldwin and Davis were arrested November 20.

Sources tell NewsChannel 5 that Baldwin and Davis were being investigated for months. The suspects were aggressively pursuing explosive devices.

Chief Jackson said he "was warned about a plot" by federal agents, but was "not given a lot of detail."

NewsChannel 5 will have more information on this story as it becomes available.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/ferguson/2014/11/26/sources-plot-to-bomb-arch-kill-mcculloch/19565733/

Man those two guys from Philly really stepping it up - Progressing from voter intimidation to murder. They sure do get around!!

OK so maybe it's not exactly the same two guys. But they probably know each other.

How would we know? They all look alike.

 

[Todem]

I am very disturbed by the continued false narrative of the "hands up, don't shoot." Whatever you think happened, I think it is VERY clear that Officer Wilson DID NOT shoot Michael Brown in the back when he had his hands up. It didn't happen that way and for people to continue to use that symbol is shameful and embarrassing.

Just read the witnesses reports and the forensics. It is not fair for this Officer to go down for every bad cop who ever mistreated a black man.

Michael Brown made many bad decisions that night and I don't know why it's so unlikely he wouldn't stop when Officer Wilson told him to, even if the officer was pointing a gun at him. He tried to take a gun from the officer to begin with. Forensics backs up that claim too.

I understand the outrage in the black community about some cops treatment of black men, but man do I think they rallied around the wrong cause this time.

Totally agree. It really is all about this for me. I find it outrageous and appalling. And for some professional football players to display that on national TV and basically ***t on the police.....disgraceful. I don't care about their right to do it....that is not the point.

It was in very bad taste. Just like people still clinging to the preposterous claim of the fatal shots were fired at Brown 150 feet away. A total lie and virtually improbable. With a service pistol, by an officer who had never shot a human being before....LMFAO!!!!!!!!

Again our media/social media has destroyed credibility of many people, sources and information that goes viral in our society. It is destroying our country in different ways. It is pitting people against people daily. I like Facebook to post pictures and reconnect with and stay connected with friends. I do not use Facebook as a platform for my personal beliefs, and to air my life on a social medium. That is nuts IMO.

It's crazy how positive social media can be used for good causes, yet how negative it can be at the same time to further toxic messages and causes as well. A curse and blessing.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

And while few of us would think to ridicule Jews for still harboring less than warm feelings for Germans some 70 years laterwe would understand the lack of trust, the wariness, even the angerwe apparently find it hard to understand the same historically embedded logic of black trepidation and contempt for law enforcement in this country.

I don't know any Jews that harbor resentment towards Germans.

Boy, I do.

Kids and young adults too? I cant think of a single instance I have ever heard anything like that. Not even jokingly.

I wont buy some makes of German cars because they were Hitler mobiles. A lot of people still hate both Germans and Germany because of WWII and the holocaust, and many are not Jewish.

You hate Germany? How old are you?

Yes and 45. Some of my family were killed in the Holocaust. Should I not hate Germany?

Yeah, because all Germans worked at concentration camps.

 

[Todem]

I am very disturbed by the continued false narrative of the "hands up, don't shoot." Whatever you think happened, I think it is VERY clear that Officer Wilson DID NOT shoot Michael Brown in the back when he had his hands up. It didn't happen that way and for people to continue to use that symbol is shameful and embarrassing.

Just read the witnesses reports and the forensics. It is not fair for this Officer to go down for every bad cop who ever mistreated a black man.

Michael Brown made many bad decisions that night and I don't know why it's so unlikely he wouldn't stop when Officer Wilson told him to, even if the officer was pointing a gun at him. He tried to take a gun from the officer to begin with. Forensics backs up that claim too.

I understand the outrage in the black community about some cops treatment of black men, but man do I think they rallied around the wrong cause this time.

The gesture isn't a protest of what happened to Brown, it's a protest of law enforcement treatment of black people in general. Even if you isolate the narrative to Ferguson, protestors and many other innocent citizens by the hundreds looked down the barrel of police weapons with their hands in the air. Here's the most famous of many such images.

As for whether this is the "wrong cause," I've posted several different times as to why I think this incident was the one that took off and became a cause instead of, say, Oscar Grant or Eric Garner or even Tamir Rice. Here's my most recent post on it. Obviously I'm just one outsider and I can't speak for a movement, but I think it's very clear that this isn't just about what happened between Brown and Wilson any more than, say, WWII was about Pearl Harbor. The shooting was just the incident that touched off the outrage, not the sole basis for it.

You and I are seeing different narratives. There are so many people doing that with the implication her was shot and killed while trying to surrender. I think your seeing things interpreted differently. I think you are speaking for a small to very small part of the protest that is using that as a mantra for their treatment by police in general.

The major story is that the belief is still out there that he was gunned down and excessive deadly force was used and the Brown family got zero justice. The by product is the bigger picture you speak of.

Which I don't disagree with. We know that there are bad cops out there. We know there is some funny business going on.

Wrong case to spark it IMO. And quite frankly that fuse has been sparked and talked about for decades. It is nothing new. The fact of the matter is all that false information that spread like a virus started this perception of a white police officer that gunned down an innocent unarmed black teenager. When all the facts and evidence surrounding the case did plenty to discredit almost all of it...because nothing is 100% concrete.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.

larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?

There are plenty of gestures that you can make on an NFL field that will get you disciplined.

Yeah, free speech may be the most misunderstood concept in the country.

The Rams are completely within their rights to cut or bench anybody who does the "hands up don't shoot" thing. But it is also a fact of life that people will naturally tend to have opinions about hot-button issues in their community, and perhaps it's a good idea to allow those folks to blow off a little steam by expressing them openly. I don't agree with the message, but it's not like it's some weird, off-the-wall offensive viewpoint that I can't put up with for a couple of seconds while waiting for the kickoff.

They are completely within their rights to do it, but what would be their incentive? How did we get to the point where an employer would have an incentive to squelch free speech? How did a mindset where people actually think intheir minds "I don't like those opinions, so I'm not going to buy a ticket to the game." When did such totalitarian/fascist thinking become to be considered so normal and even acceptable behavior that it is catered to? When did we become a fascist society?

The NFL has a long history of censoring its players. It's all about maintaining the brand image that they want. In this case, they likely felt that disciplining the players would alienate more of their target audience than just letting it be. In the other hypothetical I offered (a player flashing the "Heil Hitler" salute), I'm sure the NFL would condemn that gesture, fine/suspend the player, etc. In both instances, players are exercising their freedom of speech, and the NFL is exercising it's right to make-up and enforce its own rules about what members of their organization can and cannot say/do.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am very disturbed by the continued false narrative of the "hands up, don't shoot." Whatever you think happened, I think it is VERY clear that Officer Wilson DID NOT shoot Michael Brown in the back when he had his hands up. It didn't happen that way and for people to continue to use that symbol is shameful and embarrassing.

Just read the witnesses reports and the forensics. It is not fair for this Officer to go down for every bad cop who ever mistreated a black man.

Michael Brown made many bad decisions that night and I don't know why it's so unlikely he wouldn't stop when Officer Wilson told him to, even if the officer was pointing a gun at him. He tried to take a gun from the officer to begin with. Forensics backs up that claim too.

I understand the outrage in the black community about some cops treatment of black men, but man do I think they rallied around the wrong cause this time.

The gesture isn't a protest of what happened to Brown, it's a protest of law enforcement treatment of black people in general. Even if you isolate the narrative to Ferguson, protestors and many other innocent citizens by the hundreds looked down the barrel of police weapons with their hands in the air. Here's the most famous of many such images.

As for whether this is the "wrong cause," I've posted several different times as to why I think this incident was the one that took off and became a cause instead of, say, Oscar Grant or Eric Garner or even Tamir Rice. Here's my most recent post on it. Obviously I'm just one outsider and I can't speak for a movement, but I think it's very clear that this isn't just about what happened between Brown and Wilson any more than, say, WWII was about Pearl Harbor. The shooting was just the incident that touched off the outrage, not the sole basis for it.

You and I are seeing different narratives. There are so many people doing that with the implication her was shot and killed while trying to surrender. I think your seeing things interpreted differently. I think you are speaking for a small to very small part of the protest that is using that as a mantra for their treatment by police in general.

The major story is that the belief is still out there that he was gunned down and excessive deadly force was used and the Brown family got zero justice. The by product is the bigger picture you speak of.

Which I don't disagree with. We know that there are bad cops out there. We know there is some funny business going on.

Wrong case to spark it IMO. And quite frankly that fuse has been sparked and talked about for decades. It is nothing new. The fact of the matter is all that false information that spread like a virus started this perception of a white police officer that gunned down an innocent unarmed black teenager. When all the facts and evidence surrounding the case ddi plenty to discredit almost all of it...because nothing is 100% concrete.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's clear that they're protesting more than just what they perceive as the wrongful death of one man.

 

[General Tso]

Witness #10

Witness #10

Witness #10

Can someone - anyone - dispute his testimony as truth? If so, I'd like to hear what his motive is for lying.

The whole case hinges on this man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/

 

[Doug B]

Witness #10

Witness #10

Witness #10

Can someone - anyone - dispute his testimony as truth? If so, I'd like to hear what his motive is for lying.

Any individual witness can be explained away without justification. Like what I wrote to Tim above, there's no cost to believing who and what you want to believe. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[timschochet]

As far as the Heil Hitler analogy- the NFL has the right to censor any athlete or employee, and should in such an instance. They also have the right to punish the St Louis players should they so choose. There is no question of free speech here.

But unlike punishing someone who gives a Nazi salute, it would be extremely unwise for the NFL to punish anyone who chooses to make a public protest of the Brown shooting. That would be far more damaging to the brand than the protest itself.

Like it or not, (and I know many of you don't), there are millions of Americans who believe that Brown's death was unjustified and that such protests are appropriate and welcome, and that includes a majority of black people in this country . When you attempt to shut down peaceful protest, all that does is invite violent protest, IMO.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Witness #10

Witness #10

Witness #10

Can someone - anyone - dispute his testimony as truth? If so, I'd like to hear what his motive is for lying.

The whole case hinges on this man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/

The very account you posted acknowledges that at least 16 of the 29 witnesses dispute his testimony as the truth.

Witness 10 might very well be the most credible witness. But the testimony of one witness out of 29 doesn't "prove" anything, even if its consistent with the forensic evidence. Particularly when the standard is probable cause and not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[General Tso]

Witness #10

Witness #10

Witness #10

Can someone - anyone - dispute his testimony as truth? If so, I'd like to hear what his motive is for lying.

Any individual witness can be explained away without justification. Like what I wrote to Tim above, there's no cost to believing who and what you want to believe. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

With an attitude like that why even have a justice system? I mean, seriously. It sounds like someone who has given up.Every witness needs to be evaluated and have their credibility tested. We know for certain that many of the black witnesses in this case gave accounts that were in direct conflict with the physical evidence. We also know that many black witnesses faced pressure from other black witnesses at the scene, and the black community at large, to provide testimony that was damming to the white police officer. Yet despite this pressure, here we have witness 10, who is black, give a very detailed eyewitness account, from relatively close range, that matches the physical evidence and100% backs Officer Wilson's account.

Ince again, please give me one good reason why this witness is not trustworthy. Why would this man lie? And why does the evidence just so happen to corroborate everything he says?

If you want to just simply say that any witness can be explained away, then there's no point in arguing this anymore. I do believe that there are a LOT more people like this in the Brown camp than in the Wilson camp. It's like the OJ case all over again. It's not about justice. It's about satisfying the black side's thirst for revenge. That's all it is.

 

[jonessed]

And while few of us would think to ridicule Jews for still harboring less than warm feelings for Germans some 70 years laterwe would understand the lack of trust, the wariness, even the angerwe apparently find it hard to understand the same historically embedded logic of black trepidation and contempt for law enforcement in this country.

I don't know any Jews that harbor resentment towards Germans.

Boy, I do.

Kids and young adults too? I cant think of a single instance I have ever heard anything like that. Not even jokingly.

I wont buy some makes of German cars because they were Hitler mobiles. A lot of people still hate both Germans and Germany because of WWII and the holocaust, and many are not Jewish.

You hate Germany? How old are you?

Yes and 45. Some of my family were killed in the Holocaust. Should I not hate Germany?

You are free to hate whomever or whatever you want. Most everybody associated with the Third Reich is dead and gone though. I lost relatives in the Pacific Theatre, but I don't hate the Japanese or refuse to buy their products.

Those countries are a long way from what they were in the 40's. It seems rather pointless to hate people who had nothing to do with a 70-year old war.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Witness #10

Witness #10

Witness #10

Can someone - anyone - dispute his testimony as truth? If so, I'd like to hear what his motive is for lying.

Any individual witness can be explained away without justification. Like what I wrote to Tim above, there's no cost to believing who and what you want to believe. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

With an attitude like that why even have a justice system? I mean, seriously. It sounds like someone who has given up.Every witness needs to be evaluated and have their credibility tested. We know for certain that many of the black witnesses in this case gave accounts that were in direct conflict with the physical evidence. We also know that many black witnesses faced pressure from other black witnesses at the scene, and the black community at large, to provide testimony that was damming to the white police officer. Yet despite this pressure, here we have witness 10, who is black, give a very detailed eyewitness account, from relatively close range, that matches the physical evidence and100% backs Officer Wilson's account.

Ince again, please give me one good reason why this witness is not trustworthy. Why would this man lie? And why does the evidence just so happen to corroborate everything he says?

If you want to just simply say that any witness can be explained away, then there's no point in arguing this anymore. I do believe that there are a LOT more people like this in the Brown camp than in the Wilson camp. It's like the OJ case all over again. It's not about justice. It's about satisfying the black side's thirst for revenge. That's all it is.

There was never any point in arguing it in the first place. It's a ridiculous, fruitless endeavor to think you can find some unassailable truth. It's just a distraction from the much larger and more important issues.

Also ... "the black side's thirst for revenge"? Wow. That's awful. Maybe take a deep breath and sit out the next few plays.

 

[lod01]

Witness #10 is an American Hero as is Officer Wilson.

 

[glock]

Witness #10

Witness #10

Witness #10

Can someone - anyone - dispute his testimony as truth? If so, I'd like to hear what his motive is for lying.

Any individual witness can be explained away without justification. Like what I wrote to Tim above, there's no cost to believing who and what you want to believe. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

With an attitude like that why even have a justice system? I mean, seriously. It sounds like someone who has given up.Every witness needs to be evaluated and have their credibility tested. We know for certain that many of the black witnesses in this case gave accounts that were in direct conflict with the physical evidence. We also know that many black witnesses faced pressure from other black witnesses at the scene, and the black community at large, to provide testimony that was damming to the white police officer. Yet despite this pressure, here we have witness 10, who is black, give a very detailed eyewitness account, from relatively close range, that matches the physical evidence and100% backs Officer Wilson's account.

Ince again, please give me one good reason why this witness is not trustworthy. Why would this man lie? And why does the evidence just so happen to corroborate everything he says?

If you want to just simply say that any witness can be explained away, then there's no point in arguing this anymore. I do believe that there are a LOT more people like this in the Brown camp than in the Wilson camp. It's like the OJ case all over again. It's not about justice. It's about satisfying the black side's thirst for revenge. That's all it is.

There was never any point in arguing it in the first place. It's a ridiculous, fruitless endeavor to think you can find some unassailable truth. It's just a distraction from the much larger and more important issues.

Also ... "the black side's thirst for revenge"? Wow. That's awful. Maybe take a deep breath and sit out the next few plays.

Seriously. I'm seeing an awful lot of "thirsty" white folks these days.

 

[timschochet]

Like Todd, much of my extended family was murdered during the Holocaust . My father is a Holocaust survivor , and I have been surrounded by survivors my entire life. And not one of them hate modern day Germany. In fact my grandmother received a pension from Germany until she denied- reparations, if you will.

So I have no idea where Todd 's coming from. And I still don't know how it relates to white police officer's treatment of black men in this country.

 

[Doug B]

Witness #10

Witness #10

Witness #10

Can someone - anyone - dispute his testimony as truth? If so, I'd like to hear what his motive is for lying.

Any individual witness can be explained away without justification. Like what I wrote to Tim above, there's no cost to believing who and what you want to believe. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

With an attitude like that why even have a justice system? I mean, seriously. It sounds like someone who has given up.

... If you want to just simply say that any witness can be explained away, then there's no point in arguing this anymore. I do believe that there are a LOT more people like this in the Brown camp than in the Wilson camp. It's like the OJ case all over again. It's not about justice. It's about satisfying the black side's thirst for revenge. That's all it is.

No, no -- I agree with your overall take. I am not speaking of the actual justice system, just to the opinions people hold privately.

 

[squistion]

Remembering the talk of race-baiting a few pages back, I just ran across this on Twitter.

Steevo ‏@SHP1972 ·

Race-baiter: A term conservatives use to describe anyone who calls them out on their racism. #tcot #ferguson #racism #GOP

 

[Dondante]

Remembering the talk of race-baiting a few pages back, I just ran across this on Twitter.

Steevo ‏@SHP1972 ·

Race-baiter: A term conservatives use to describe anyone who calls them out on their racism. #tcot #ferguson #racism #GOP Al Sharpton.

Fixed

 

[Stinger Ray]

Remembering the talk of race-baiting a few pages back, I just ran across this on Twitter.

Steevo ‏@SHP1972 ·

Race-baiter: A term conservatives use to describe anyone who calls them out on their racism. #tcot #ferguson #racism #GOP

Please tell us you don't seriously believe the term is only used by conservatives.

 

[timschochet]

Remembering the talk of race-baiting a few pages back, I just ran across this on Twitter.

Steevo ‏@SHP1972 ·

Race-baiter: A term conservatives use to describe anyone who calls them out on their racism. #tcot #ferguson #racism #GOP

Witty but not true. There are black race baiters put there- people who are more eager to foment anger and hatred than they are to address and try to solve issues. Two of the most vile are Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This is going to be a long, lawyerly "inside baseball" post that people are free to ignore, But I'm going to try to explain what personally rubs me the wrong way about the Ferguson grand jury process and why I think its representative of a certain class of cases where the adversarial system used in criminal judicial proceedings is particularly likely to be inadequate.

Typically, in a criminal case, the State's and the victim's (or the victim's family's) interests are aligned. The victim doesn't have a lawyer in the process, so he or she relies upon the State to represent him or her. And the defendant has counsel to represent him or her. So when an eyewitness account seems to implicate the defendant, it is the defendant's counsel's job to try to discredit that testimony. And when an eyewitness account tends to exculpate the defendant, it is the prosecution's job to cross-examine and try to discredit that testimony. Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed. But once evidence is presented before a grand jury, it is NOT typical for the prosecutor (who is the only "side" presenting evidence) to then attempt to cross-examine and possibly discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses presented. That's exactly what appeared to happen to Dorian Johnson, however.

I think it's entirely appropriate for Darren Wilson's lawyer to discredit Dorian Johnson at trial. I think it's inappropriate for the State to discredit Dorian Johnson before the grand jury. Now, I've known law professors who believe we should scrap the adversarial system altogether. All proceedings should be collaborative searches for the truth, they say. Maybe they are right. But I don't believe that 99,9% of grand jury proceedings should be one-sided presentations and only those involving police officers should be collaborative searches for the truth, because you can't ignore the fact that prosecutors and police officers and forensic scientists employed by police departments very often have interests that are aligned.

When I read the transcripts from this proceeding, what I'm struck by is that the victim did not have a zealous advocate in the proceeding. That is rare, and it strikes me as problematic.

 

[FlapJacks]

Remembering the talk of race-baiting a few pages back, I just ran across this on Twitter.

Steevo ‏@SHP1972 ·

Race-baiter: A term conservatives use to describe anyone who calls them out on their racism. #tcot #ferguson #racism #GOP

what an incredibly offensive thing to post

 

[squistion]

Remembering the talk of race-baiting a few pages back, I just ran across this on Twitter.

Steevo ‏@SHP1972 ·

Race-baiter: A term conservatives use to describe anyone who calls them out on their racism. #tcot #ferguson #racism #GOP

Witty but not true. There are black race baiters put there- people who are more eager to foment anger and hatred than they are to address and try to solve issues. Two of the most vile are Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters.

I knew this would get a rise out of you.

 

[FlapJacks]

This is going to be a long, lawyerly "inside baseball" post that people are free to ignore, But I'm going to try to explain what personally rubs me the wrong way about the Ferguson grand jury process and why I think its representative of a certain class of cases where the adversarial system used in criminal judicial proceedings is particularly likely to be inadequate.

Typically, in a criminal case, the State's and the victim's (or the victim's family's) interests are aligned. The victim doesn't have a lawyer in the process, so he or she relies upon the State to represent him or her. And the defendant has counsel to represent him or her. So when an eyewitness account seems to implicate the defendant, it is the defendant's counsel's job to try to discredit that testimony. And when an eyewitness account tends to exculpate the defendant, it is the prosecution's job to cross-examine and try to discredit that testimony. Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed. But once evidence is presented before a grand jury, it is NOT typical for the prosecutor (who is the only "side" presenting evidence) to then attempt to cross-examine and possibly discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses presented. That's exactly what appeared to happen to Dorian Johnson, however.

I think it's entirely appropriate for Darren Wilson's lawyer to discredit Dorian Johnson at trial. I think it's inappropriate for the State to discredit Dorian Johnson before the grand jury. Now, I've known law professors who believe we should scrap the adversarial system altogether. All proceedings should be collaborative searches for the truth, they say. Maybe they are right. But I don't believe that 99,9% of grand jury proceedings should be one-sided presentations and only those involving police officers should be collaborative searches for the truth, because you can't ignore the fact that prosecutors and police officers and forensic scientists employed by police departments very often have interests that are aligned.

When I read the transcripts from this proceeding, what I'm struck by is that the victim did not have a zealous advocate in the proceeding. That is rare, and it strikes me as problematic.

excellent point here

 

[Henry Ford]

This is going to be a long, lawyerly "inside baseball" post that people are free to ignore, But I'm going to try to explain what personally rubs me the wrong way about the Ferguson grand jury process and why I think its representative of a certain class of cases where the adversarial system used in criminal judicial proceedings is particularly likely to be inadequate.

Typically, in a criminal case, the State's and the victim's (or the victim's family's) interests are aligned. The victim doesn't have a lawyer in the process, so he or she relies upon the State to represent him or her. And the defendant has counsel to represent him or her. So when an eyewitness account seems to implicate the defendant, it is the defendant's counsel's job to try to discredit that testimony. And when an eyewitness account tends to exculpate the defendant, it is the prosecution's job to cross-examine and try to discredit that testimony. Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed. But once evidence is presented before a grand jury, it is NOT typical for the prosecutor (who is the only "side" presenting evidence) to then attempt to cross-examine and possibly discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses presented. That's exactly what appeared to happen to Dorian Johnson, however.

I think it's entirely appropriate for Darren Wilson's lawyer to discredit Dorian Johnson at trial. I think it's inappropriate for the State to discredit Dorian Johnson before the grand jury. Now, I've known law professors who believe we should scrap the adversarial system altogether. All proceedings should be collaborative searches for the truth, they say. Maybe they are right. But I don't believe that 99,9% of grand jury proceedings should be one-sided presentations and only those involving police officers should be collaborative searches for the truth, because you can't ignore the fact that prosecutors and police officers and forensic scientists employed by police departments very often have interests that are aligned.

When I read the transcripts from this proceeding, what I'm struck by is that the victim did not have a zealous advocate in the proceeding. That is rare, and it strikes me as problematic.

Yup.

 

[glock]

This is going to be a long, lawyerly "inside baseball" post that people are free to ignore, But I'm going to try to explain what personally rubs me the wrong way about the Ferguson grand jury process and why I think its representative of a certain class of cases where the adversarial system used in criminal judicial proceedings is particularly likely to be inadequate.

Typically, in a criminal case, the State's and the victim's (or the victim's family's) interests are aligned. The victim doesn't have a lawyer in the process, so he or she relies upon the State to represent him or her. And the defendant has counsel to represent him or her. So when an eyewitness account seems to implicate the defendant, it is the defendant's counsel's job to try to discredit that testimony. And when an eyewitness account tends to exculpate the defendant, it is the prosecution's job to cross-examine and try to discredit that testimony. Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed. But once evidence is presented before a grand jury, it is NOT typical for the prosecutor (who is the only "side" presenting evidence) to then attempt to cross-examine and possibly discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses presented. That's exactly what appeared to happen to Dorian Johnson, however.

I think it's entirely appropriate for Darren Wilson's lawyer to discredit Dorian Johnson at trial. I think it's inappropriate for the State to discredit Dorian Johnson before the grand jury. Now, I've known law professors who believe we should scrap the adversarial system altogether. All proceedings should be collaborative searches for the truth, they say. Maybe they are right. But I don't believe that 99,9% of grand jury proceedings should be one-sided presentations and only those involving police officers should be collaborative searches for the truth, because you can't ignore the fact that prosecutors and police officers and forensic scientists employed by police departments very often have interests that are aligned.

When I read the transcripts from this proceeding, what I'm struck by is that the victim did not have a zealous advocate in the proceeding. That is rare, and it strikes me as problematic.