GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
7,912 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
21 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
60 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Grand juries rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
At least in Ferguson the grand jury got all the evidence and made its decision based upon that complete picture. Sadly, Eric Garner is not receiving the same opportunity.


Now this is a case that I can get behind. Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin on the other hand did more damage to the cause.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLICE_CHOKEHOLD_D...

At least in Ferguson the grand jury got all the evidence and made its decision based upon that complete picture. Sadly, Eric Garner is not receiving the same opportunity.

If you want an injustice, here it is. Allegedly, Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Nearby witnesses claim the only reason he received police attention is because he broke up a fight.

The choke hold the police used is a violation of their own policies. Holding his hands up and saying, "Don't touch me" is no provocation for such violence. He was not asked to put his hands behind his back. He insisted that the police were harassing him, and without warning he was attacked and proven correct.

After choking him to unconsciousness, police stand around and fail to revive him for minutes before paramedics arrive. Paramedics also make no attempt to secure his airway. Garner later dies at the hospital.

The grand jury has refused to indict. Garner will receive no justice from NYC.

And people have the chutzpah to claim that grand juries are rubber stamps. shake


This case and the 12-year-old in Cleveland seem like they should be better bets to actually bring some of the right-wingers into the conversation about police brutality. I think there's a lot of room for argument (not saying it's right or wrong, just that there's more ambiguity in the circumstances) on the Michael Brown case, but it seems totally ludicrous to me that a grand jury could see this tape and not think there was sufficient evidence to send this to trial.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
And people have the chutzpah to claim that grand juries are rubber stamps. shake


Grand juries are rubber stamps. The definition of a rubber stamp process is that it gets the result the authority in question wants, and prosecutors want practically all non-police defendants to go trial and want practically no police defendants to go to trial, and that is exactly what happens.
21 
 Thumb up
0.06
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLICE_CHOKEHOLD_D...

At least in Ferguson the grand jury got all the evidence and made its decision based upon that complete picture. Sadly, Eric Garner is not receiving the same opportunity.

If you want an injustice, here it is. Allegedly, Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Nearby witnesses claim the only reason he received police attention is because he broke up a fight.

The choke hold the police used is a violation of their own policies. Holding his hands up and saying, "Don't touch me" is no provocation for such violence. He was not asked to put his hands behind his back. He insisted that the police were harassing him, and without warning he was attacked and proven correct.

After choking him to unconsciousness, police stand around and fail to revive him for minutes before paramedics arrive. Paramedics also make no attempt to secure his airway. Garner later dies at the hospital.

The grand jury has refused to indict. Garner will receive no justice from NYC.

And people have the chutzpah to claim that grand juries are rubber stamps. shake


This case and the 12-year-old in Cleveland seem like they should be better bets to actually bring some of the right-wingers into the conversation about police brutality. I think there's a lot of room for argument (not saying it's right or wrong, just that there's more ambiguity in the circumstances) on the Michael Brown case, but it seems totally ludicrous to me that a grand jury could see this tape and not think there was sufficient evidence to send this to trial.


Did they let them consider lesser charges? I think it's interesting that the prosecutor chose to close with hours of testimony from the officer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walker
United States
Birmingham
Alabama
flag msg tools
"The significance of a person's life is determined by the story they believe themselves to be in." - Wendell Berry "If nothing lies beyond the pale of death, then nothing of value lies before it." - SMBC
badge
Thy mercy, my God, is the theme of my song, the joy of my heart and the boast of my tongue. Thy free grace alone, from the first to the last, has won my affection and bound my soul fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLICE_CHOKEHOLD_D...

At least in Ferguson the grand jury got all the evidence and made its decision based upon that complete picture. Sadly, Eric Garner is not receiving the same opportunity.

If you want an injustice, here it is. Allegedly, Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Nearby witnesses claim the only reason he received police attention is because he broke up a fight.

The choke hold the police used is a violation of their own policies. Holding his hands up and saying, "Don't touch me" is no provocation for such violence. He was not asked to put his hands behind his back. He insisted that the police were harassing him, and without warning he was attacked and proven correct.

After choking him to unconsciousness, police stand around and fail to revive him for minutes before paramedics arrive. Paramedics also make no attempt to secure his airway. Garner later dies at the hospital.

The grand jury has refused to indict. Garner will receive no justice from NYC.

And people have the chutzpah to claim that grand juries are rubber stamps. shake


This case and the 12-year-old in Cleveland seem like they should be better bets to actually bring some of the right-wingers into the conversation about police brutality. I think there's a lot of room for argument (not saying it's right or wrong, just that there's more ambiguity in the circumstances) on the Michael Brown case, but it seems totally ludicrous to me that a grand jury could see this tape and not think there was sufficient evidence to send this to trial.


Slate had a good article on why cops are rarely indicted in cases like this.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
Did they let them consider lesser charges? I think it's interesting that the prosecutor chose to close with hours of testimony from the officer.


Why is that interesting? That's how you get a police officer off on a grand jury: you let them tell their own version of the story with no cross-examination whatsoever. Turns out when you don't challenge a murderer's story, there's always perfectly good reasons for the murdering!

In the Eric Garner case, the cop explained that he didn't MEAN to choke Eric Garner to death, and besides Eric Garner had been aggressive and scary - because unarmed black men are always aggressive and scary in these situations, and people like Jeremy and Shushnik will fucking fall over themselves to believe that black people will just get up in a police officer's face for no goddamn reason whatsoever, and there's always enough Jeremies and Shushniks on any grand jury to make sure that the grand jury doesn't succeed because the grand jury needs 9 out of 12 people to say "yes, there should be a trial" and it's easy to get four white people who are scared of black people to say no.
9 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
mightygodking wrote:
she2 wrote:
Did they let them consider lesser charges? I think it's interesting that the prosecutor chose to close with hours of testimony from the officer.


Why is that interesting? That's how you get a police officer off on a grand jury: you let them tell their own version of the story with no cross-examination whatsoever. Turns out when you don't challenge a murderer's story, there's always perfectly good reasons for the murdering!

In the Eric Garner case, the cop explained that he didn't MEAN to choke Eric Garner to death, and besides Eric Garner had been aggressive and scary - because unarmed black men are always aggressive and scary in these situations, and people like Jeremy and Shushnik will fucking fall over themselves to believe that black people will just get up in a police officer's face for no goddamn reason whatsoever, and there's always enough Jeremies and Shushniks on any grand jury to make sure that the grand jury doesn't succeed because the grand jury needs 9 out of 12 people to say "yes, there should be a trial" and it's easy to get four white people who are scared of black people to say no.


I meant it was "interesting" with air quotes.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
That is not the argument that has been sounded since Ferguson. It has been, "Why didn't the prosecutor use the normal grand jury procedure? Grand juries will indict on his say so alone."


That's not the argument at all. The prosecutor didn't need to use a grand jury whatsoever; he could have just laid charges, because the grand jury process was optional for him.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Well sure, but the evidence didn't support charging the officer in that case so that would have been stupid.


As has been pointed out numerous times, the evidence most certainly supported charging him, unless you accept Wilson's version of events absolutely uncritically.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide. The cop used a choke hold which is a banned maneuver in that police force. If I did something at my job that was against the company rules and someone died, I would at the very least be fired. That cop still has his job.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Well sure, but the evidence didn't support charging the officer in that case so that would have been stupid.


As has been pointed out numerous times, the evidence most certainly supported charging him, unless you accept Wilson's version of events absolutely uncritically.


Or the physical evidence. Or the witnesses.


This isn't about evidence. A white police officer killed a black man, therefore racism.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Well sure, but the evidence didn't support charging the officer in that case so that would have been stupid.


As has been pointed out numerous times, the evidence most certainly supported charging him, unless you accept Wilson's version of events absolutely uncritically.


Or the physical evidence. Or the witnesses.


This isn't about evidence. A white police officer killed a black man, therefore racism.


I love hearing dumbasses whine about "evidence" when the neutral evidence - IE, that evidence that is not in support of either party - does not exonerate Wilson. What is neutrally accepted by both sides is:

1. Wilson called to Michael Brown from his car to stop him
2. Wilson and Brown engaged in a scuffle while Wilson was still inside the car
3. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the car, injuring Brown
4. Brown ran
5. Wilson gave chase at shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing
6. Brown stopped and turned and raised his hands (even Wilson testified in agreement with this)
7. Wilson shot Brown several times
8. Brown advanced towards Wilson after being shot
9. Wilson shot Brown again some more
10. Brown died

That is the neutral evidence upon which all witnesses agree and which is all the physical evidence supports. It does not exonerate Wilson. This evidence does not state that Brown initiated the conflict at the car (that is Wilson's version of events, with which most witnesses who testified on that issue disagree). It does not state that Brown tried to take Wilson's weapon (that is Wilson's version of events, unsupported by anyone other than himself). It does not state that after being shot Brown turned into a demon and charged Wilson in attack mode (the majority of witnesses disagree with that characterization).

It's very easy to construct a narrative with the aforementioned series of events in which Wilson simply murders Brown. Wilson calls Brown over to his car, wrestles him into the car and tries to shoot him, but Brown flees. Wilson gives chase, shoots at Brown some more. Brown turns around and attempts to surrender, but Wilson shoots him several times. Brown staggers towards Wilson for whatever reason (maybe a last ditch effort to save his life, maybe pleading for mercy, whatever) and Wilson executes him. And the thing is: this narrative is supported by numerous witnesses, including a majority of witnesses at the grand jury. (Wilson's narrative is supported in its entirety only by himself and Witness #40 - which is a journal entry from an anonymous source who admits at the outset that he's a racist.)

And again: we aren't speaking about Wilson's guilt or innocence. Frankly I find it hard to believe that Wilson would be found guilty at trial; he can make his self-defense claim and the relative lack of physical evidence on every point that matters (for example, whether or not Brown's fingerprints were on Wilson's weapon) would set up enough doubt that he would walk.

But that's not the point. The point is: there is more than enough doubt with respect to what happened between Wilson and Brown, even after taking all of the physical evidence into account and especially after considering witness testimony, that he should have gone to trial.

This is the thing: the prosecutor clearly did not want him to. There's a difference between the way the prosecutor questions witnesses at the grand jury who are testifying "against" Wilson and how they question Wilson himself: any trial lawyer (and I am one) can tell you that when a witness is friendly, you question so as to let them tell their story and are primarily concerned with making sure that they don't miss details you want heard. When a witness isn't friendly, you cross-examine harshly to try and elicit contradictory statements or make the witness seem less credible by forcing him to admit that he doesn't know fact X or Y for sure, and you try to avoid letting him talk without setting up the situation for him. And I can tell you, just by reading the testimony, that the prosecution treated Wilson as friendly and witnesses "against" Wilson as hostile. Given that the prosecutor running the grand jury is the president of a "defend cops" organization who actively supported Wilson prior to his grand jury appearance, this should not be terribly surprising.

Look, if you want to believe Wilson's narrative, that's your choice. Kind of a racist choice, because Wilson's narrative is stupid and relies on racist tropes, but it's your choice, good for you. But I'm really tired of people acting like Wilson was exonerated because of a process which was purpose-designed to prevent him from being charged regardless of the actual facts; the Eric Garner incident should demonstrate that a prosecutor can almost always get a grand jury to decide how the prosecutor wants - even if there's video of a cop choking a guy to death as he begs for his life.
27 
 Thumb up
0.31
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
...awesome rant...

Preach it, brother!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You can disagree with MGK on the merits of the evidence, but he's been talking about the evidence pretty consistently throughout the thread. To dismiss his posts as "This isn't about evidence" is not helpful to Junior's other thread.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you're going to be angry and protest police misuse of force this is a case where i can see it. People angry over Brown and Trayvon, to me, are just embarrassing themselves or just want a world where no self defense exists.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
sfox wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Well sure, but the evidence didn't support charging the officer in that case so that would have been stupid.


As has been pointed out numerous times, the evidence most certainly supported charging him, unless you accept Wilson's version of events absolutely uncritically.


Or the physical evidence. Or the witnesses.


This isn't about evidence. A white police officer killed a black man, therefore racism.


I love hearing dumbasses whine about "evidence" when the neutral evidence - IE, that evidence that is not in support of either party - does not exonerate Wilson. What is neutrally accepted by both sides is:

1. Wilson called to Michael Brown from his car to stop him
2. Wilson and Brown engaged in a scuffle while Wilson was still inside the car
3. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the car, injuring Brown
4. Brown ran
5. Wilson gave chase at shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing
6. Brown stopped and turned and raised his hands (even Wilson testified in agreement with this)
7. Wilson shot Brown several times
8. Brown advanced towards Wilson after being shot
9. Wilson shot Brown again some more
10. Brown died

That is the neutral evidence upon which all witnesses agree and which is all the physical evidence supports. It does not exonerate Wilson. This evidence does not state that Brown initiated the conflict at the car (that is Wilson's version of events, with which most witnesses who testified on that issue disagree). It does not state that Brown tried to take Wilson's weapon (that is Wilson's version of events, unsupported by anyone other than himself). It does not state that after being shot Brown turned into a demon and charged Wilson in attack mode (the majority of witnesses disagree with that characterization).

It's very easy to construct a narrative with the aforementioned series of events in which Wilson simply murders Brown. Wilson calls Brown over to his car, wrestles him into the car and tries to shoot him, but Brown flees. Wilson gives chase, shoots at Brown some more. Brown turns around and attempts to surrender, but Wilson shoots him several times. Brown staggers towards Wilson for whatever reason (maybe a last ditch effort to save his life, maybe pleading for mercy, whatever) and Wilson executes him. And the thing is: this narrative is supported by numerous witnesses, including a majority of witnesses at the grand jury. (Wilson's narrative is supported in its entirety only by himself and Witness #40 - which is a journal entry from an anonymous source who admits at the outset that he's a racist.)

And again: we aren't speaking about Wilson's guilt or innocence. Frankly I find it hard to believe that Wilson would be found guilty at trial; he can make his self-defense claim and the relative lack of physical evidence on every point that matters (for example, whether or not Brown's fingerprints were on Wilson's weapon) would set up enough doubt that he would walk.

But that's not the point. The point is: there is more than enough doubt with respect to what happened between Wilson and Brown, even after taking all of the physical evidence into account and especially after considering witness testimony, that he should have gone to trial.

This is the thing: the prosecutor clearly did not want him to. There's a difference between the way the prosecutor questions witnesses at the grand jury who are testifying "against" Wilson and how they question Wilson himself: any trial lawyer (and I am one) can tell you that when a witness is friendly, you question so as to let them tell their story and are primarily concerned with making sure that they don't miss details you want heard. When a witness isn't friendly, you cross-examine harshly to try and elicit contradictory statements or make the witness seem less credible by forcing him to admit that he doesn't know fact X or Y for sure, and you try to avoid letting him talk without setting up the situation for him. And I can tell you, just by reading the testimony, that the prosecution treated Wilson as friendly and witnesses "against" Wilson as hostile. Given that the prosecutor running the grand jury is the president of a "defend cops" organization who actively supported Wilson prior to his grand jury appearance, this should not be terribly surprising.

Look, if you want to believe Wilson's narrative, that's your choice. Kind of a racist choice, because Wilson's narrative is stupid and relies on racist tropes, but it's your choice, good for you. But I'm really tired of people acting like Wilson was exonerated because of a process which was purpose-designed to prevent him from being charged regardless of the actual facts; the Eric Garner incident should demonstrate that a prosecutor can almost always get a grand jury to decide how the prosecutor wants - even if there's video of a cop choking a guy to death as he begs for his life.


I forsee your post being ignored and several people abandoning the thread altogether so they can pretend it does not exist. To do otherwise would uncomfortably challenge their paradigm.

In other words, you're right, you have standing to argue, and you made your points neatly. Well played.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
sfox wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Well sure, but the evidence didn't support charging the officer in that case so that would have been stupid.


As has been pointed out numerous times, the evidence most certainly supported charging him, unless you accept Wilson's version of events absolutely uncritically.


Or the physical evidence. Or the witnesses.


This isn't about evidence. A white police officer killed a black man, therefore racism.


I love hearing dumbasses whine about "evidence" when the neutral evidence - IE, that evidence that is not in support of either party - does not exonerate Wilson. What is neutrally accepted by both sides is:

1. Wilson called to Michael Brown from his car to stop him
2. Wilson and Brown engaged in a scuffle while Wilson was still inside the car
3. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the car, injuring Brown
4. Brown ran
5. Wilson gave chase at shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing
6. Brown stopped and turned and raised his hands (even Wilson testified in agreement with this)
7. Wilson shot Brown several times
8. Brown advanced towards Wilson after being shot
9. Wilson shot Brown again some more
10. Brown died

That is the neutral evidence upon which all witnesses agree and which is all the physical evidence supports. It does not exonerate Wilson. This evidence does not state that Brown initiated the conflict at the car (that is Wilson's version of events, with which most witnesses who testified on that issue disagree). It does not state that Brown tried to take Wilson's weapon (that is Wilson's version of events, unsupported by anyone other than himself). It does not state that after being shot Brown turned into a demon and charged Wilson in attack mode (the majority of witnesses disagree with that characterization).

It's very easy to construct a narrative with the aforementioned series of events in which Wilson simply murders Brown. Wilson calls Brown over to his car, wrestles him into the car and tries to shoot him, but Brown flees. Wilson gives chase, shoots at Brown some more. Brown turns around and attempts to surrender, but Wilson shoots him several times. Brown staggers towards Wilson for whatever reason (maybe a last ditch effort to save his life, maybe pleading for mercy, whatever) and Wilson executes him. And the thing is: this narrative is supported by numerous witnesses, including a majority of witnesses at the grand jury. (Wilson's narrative is supported in its entirety only by himself and Witness #40 - which is a journal entry from an anonymous source who admits at the outset that he's a racist.)

And again: we aren't speaking about Wilson's guilt or innocence. Frankly I find it hard to believe that Wilson would be found guilty at trial; he can make his self-defense claim and the relative lack of physical evidence on every point that matters (for example, whether or not Brown's fingerprints were on Wilson's weapon) would set up enough doubt that he would walk.

But that's not the point. The point is: there is more than enough doubt with respect to what happened between Wilson and Brown, even after taking all of the physical evidence into account and especially after considering witness testimony, that he should have gone to trial.

This is the thing: the prosecutor clearly did not want him to. There's a difference between the way the prosecutor questions witnesses at the grand jury who are testifying "against" Wilson and how they question Wilson himself: any trial lawyer (and I am one) can tell you that when a witness is friendly, you question so as to let them tell their story and are primarily concerned with making sure that they don't miss details you want heard. When a witness isn't friendly, you cross-examine harshly to try and elicit contradictory statements or make the witness seem less credible by forcing him to admit that he doesn't know fact X or Y for sure, and you try to avoid letting him talk without setting up the situation for him. And I can tell you, just by reading the testimony, that the prosecution treated Wilson as friendly and witnesses "against" Wilson as hostile. Given that the prosecutor running the grand jury is the president of a "defend cops" organization who actively supported Wilson prior to his grand jury appearance, this should not be terribly surprising.

Look, if you want to believe Wilson's narrative, that's your choice. Kind of a racist choice, because Wilson's narrative is stupid and relies on racist tropes, but it's your choice, good for you. But I'm really tired of people acting like Wilson was exonerated because of a process which was purpose-designed to prevent him from being charged regardless of the actual facts; the Eric Garner incident should demonstrate that a prosecutor can almost always get a grand jury to decide how the prosecutor wants - even if there's video of a cop choking a guy to death as he begs for his life.


Wilson should have indicted, but your list is wrong. You also don't have to be a racist to believe Wilson was just trying to do his job.

You certainly don't have to be a racist to see that the Eric Garner situation was accidental as well. Despite the headlines and horse shit, if you watch the video where Garner is saying he can't breathe you have to be a complete idiot to not understand that if a guy can say loudly say "I can't breathe" four or five times, he clearly can breathe. The is why the officer ignored his pleas. If the officer had actually gotten a good choke hold on him he wouldn't have been able to say a damned thing. The reason Garner died was that he had asthma, heart disease, etc and the scuffle caused an asthma attack which triggered a heart attack. The problem was exacerbated by the way he was laying on the ground (on his side instead of back) and the fact that he was extremely fat, further constricting his ability to breathe.

The only real mistake Officer Pantaleo made was not understanding that Eric Garner was asthmatic and what the result of that could be. Last I checked we don't train all of our police officers on how to perform a field diagnoses for asthma and certainly Eric Garner never said he was asthmatic or asked for his inhaler. Once he stopped moving (pure speculation on my part) I doubt the officer thought to check to see if he was breathing, just assuming that he had quit struggling. By the time they noticed it was a real problem it was likely already too late.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's the only mistake? You think it was right and proper to use a choke hold even though its against regulations?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
sfox wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Well sure, but the evidence didn't support charging the officer in that case so that would have been stupid.


As has been pointed out numerous times, the evidence most certainly supported charging him, unless you accept Wilson's version of events absolutely uncritically.


Or the physical evidence. Or the witnesses.


This isn't about evidence. A white police officer killed a black man, therefore racism.


I love hearing dumbasses whine about "evidence" when the neutral evidence - IE, that evidence that is not in support of either party - does not exonerate Wilson. What is neutrally accepted by both sides is:

1. Wilson called to Michael Brown from his car to stop him
2. Wilson and Brown engaged in a scuffle while Wilson was still inside the car
3. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the car, injuring Brown
4. Brown ran
5. Wilson gave chase at shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing
6. Brown stopped and turned and raised his hands (even Wilson testified in agreement with this)
7. Wilson shot Brown several times
8. Brown advanced towards Wilson after being shot
9. Wilson shot Brown again some more
10. Brown died

That is the neutral evidence upon which all witnesses agree and which is all the physical evidence supports. It does not exonerate Wilson. This evidence does not state that Brown initiated the conflict at the car (that is Wilson's version of events, with which most witnesses who testified on that issue disagree). It does not state that Brown tried to take Wilson's weapon (that is Wilson's version of events, unsupported by anyone other than himself). It does not state that after being shot Brown turned into a demon and charged Wilson in attack mode (the majority of witnesses disagree with that characterization).

It's very easy to construct a narrative with the aforementioned series of events in which Wilson simply murders Brown. Wilson calls Brown over to his car, wrestles him into the car and tries to shoot him, but Brown flees. Wilson gives chase, shoots at Brown some more. Brown turns around and attempts to surrender, but Wilson shoots him several times. Brown staggers towards Wilson for whatever reason (maybe a last ditch effort to save his life, maybe pleading for mercy, whatever) and Wilson executes him. And the thing is: this narrative is supported by numerous witnesses, including a majority of witnesses at the grand jury. (Wilson's narrative is supported in its entirety only by himself and Witness #40 - which is a journal entry from an anonymous source who admits at the outset that he's a racist.)

And again: we aren't speaking about Wilson's guilt or innocence. Frankly I find it hard to believe that Wilson would be found guilty at trial; he can make his self-defense claim and the relative lack of physical evidence on every point that matters (for example, whether or not Brown's fingerprints were on Wilson's weapon) would set up enough doubt that he would walk.

But that's not the point. The point is: there is more than enough doubt with respect to what happened between Wilson and Brown, even after taking all of the physical evidence into account and especially after considering witness testimony, that he should have gone to trial.

This is the thing: the prosecutor clearly did not want him to. There's a difference between the way the prosecutor questions witnesses at the grand jury who are testifying "against" Wilson and how they question Wilson himself: any trial lawyer (and I am one) can tell you that when a witness is friendly, you question so as to let them tell their story and are primarily concerned with making sure that they don't miss details you want heard. When a witness isn't friendly, you cross-examine harshly to try and elicit contradictory statements or make the witness seem less credible by forcing him to admit that he doesn't know fact X or Y for sure, and you try to avoid letting him talk without setting up the situation for him. And I can tell you, just by reading the testimony, that the prosecution treated Wilson as friendly and witnesses "against" Wilson as hostile. Given that the prosecutor running the grand jury is the president of a "defend cops" organization who actively supported Wilson prior to his grand jury appearance, this should not be terribly surprising.

Look, if you want to believe Wilson's narrative, that's your choice. Kind of a racist choice, because Wilson's narrative is stupid and relies on racist tropes, but it's your choice, good for you. But I'm really tired of people acting like Wilson was exonerated because of a process which was purpose-designed to prevent him from being charged regardless of the actual facts; the Eric Garner incident should demonstrate that a prosecutor can almost always get a grand jury to decide how the prosecutor wants - even if there's video of a cop choking a guy to death as he begs for his life.


Wilson should have indicted, but your list is wrong. You also don't have to be a racist to believe Wilson was just trying to do his job.

You certainly don't have to be a racist to see that the Eric Garner situation was accidental as well. Despite the headlines and horse shit, if you watch the video where Garner is saying he can't breathe you have to be a complete idiot to not understand that if a guy can say loudly say "I can't breathe" four or five times, he clearly can breathe. The is why the officer ignored his pleas. If the officer had actually gotten a good choke hold on him he wouldn't have been able to say a damned thing. The reason Garner died was that he had asthma, heart disease, etc and the scuffle caused an asthma attack which triggered a heart attack. The problem was exacerbated by the way he was laying on the ground (on his side instead of back) and the fact that he was extremely fat, further constricting his ability to breathe.

The only real mistake Officer Pantaleo made was not understanding that Eric Garner was asthmatic and what the result of that could be. Last I checked we don't train all of our police officers on how to perform a field diagnoses for asthma and certainly Eric Garner never said he was asthmatic or asked for his inhaler. Once he stopped moving (pure speculation on my part) I doubt the officer thought to check to see if he was breathing, just assuming that he had quit struggling. By the time they noticed it was a real problem it was likely already too late.
So if someone says they cannot breathe they should be ignored becasue they can talk.

I also seem to recall being chocked, not being able to breathe and still say I cannot breathe. Indeed the victim does not exactly sound like he has a full lung of air. In fact his last "I can't breathe" tails off, as it would if he was out of breathe.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
red black wrote:
mightygodking wrote:

1. Wilson called to Michael Brown from his car to stop him
2. Wilson and Brown engaged in a scuffle while Wilson was still inside the car
3. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the car, injuring Brown
4. Brown ran
5. Wilson gave chase at shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing
6. Brown stopped and turned and raised his hands (even Wilson testified in agreement with this)
7. Wilson shot Brown several times
8. Brown advanced towards Wilson after being shot
9. Wilson shot Brown again some more
10. Brown died

That is the neutral evidence upon which all witnesses agree and which is all the physical evidence supports. It does not exonerate Wilson. This evidence does not state that Brown initiated the conflict at the car (that is Wilson's version of events, with which most witnesses who testified on that issue disagree). It does not state that Brown tried to take Wilson's weapon (that is Wilson's version of events, unsupported by anyone other than himself). It does not state that after being shot Brown turned into a demon and charged Wilson in attack mode (the majority of witnesses disagree with that characterization).


Did Brown he reach inside the car? Was that question put to the witnesses?
There was forensic evidacen he was in the car (to a degree), not why.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
red black wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
red black wrote:
mightygodking wrote:

1. Wilson called to Michael Brown from his car to stop him
2. Wilson and Brown engaged in a scuffle while Wilson was still inside the car
3. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the car, injuring Brown
4. Brown ran
5. Wilson gave chase at shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing
6. Brown stopped and turned and raised his hands (even Wilson testified in agreement with this)
7. Wilson shot Brown several times
8. Brown advanced towards Wilson after being shot
9. Wilson shot Brown again some more
10. Brown died

That is the neutral evidence upon which all witnesses agree and which is all the physical evidence supports. It does not exonerate Wilson. This evidence does not state that Brown initiated the conflict at the car (that is Wilson's version of events, with which most witnesses who testified on that issue disagree). It does not state that Brown tried to take Wilson's weapon (that is Wilson's version of events, unsupported by anyone other than himself). It does not state that after being shot Brown turned into a demon and charged Wilson in attack mode (the majority of witnesses disagree with that characterization).


Did Brown he reach inside the car? Was that question put to the witnesses?
There was forensic evidacen he was in the car (to a degree), not why.


I'm not sure any of the witnesses were able to see why Brown reaching inside the car. I haven't read the testimony.
Does not matter, his blood was inside the car, thus he was near enough for blood spatters to enter the vehicle. There are two conflicting version as to why, was he pulled, or did he reach in?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
red black wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
red black wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
red black wrote:
mightygodking wrote:

1. Wilson called to Michael Brown from his car to stop him
2. Wilson and Brown engaged in a scuffle while Wilson was still inside the car
3. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the car, injuring Brown
4. Brown ran
5. Wilson gave chase at shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing
6. Brown stopped and turned and raised his hands (even Wilson testified in agreement with this)
7. Wilson shot Brown several times
8. Brown advanced towards Wilson after being shot
9. Wilson shot Brown again some more
10. Brown died

That is the neutral evidence upon which all witnesses agree and which is all the physical evidence supports. It does not exonerate Wilson. This evidence does not state that Brown initiated the conflict at the car (that is Wilson's version of events, with which most witnesses who testified on that issue disagree). It does not state that Brown tried to take Wilson's weapon (that is Wilson's version of events, unsupported by anyone other than himself). It does not state that after being shot Brown turned into a demon and charged Wilson in attack mode (the majority of witnesses disagree with that characterization).


Did Brown he reach inside the car? Was that question put to the witnesses?
There was forensic evidacen he was in the car (to a degree), not why.


I'm not sure any of the witnesses were able to see why Brown reaching inside the car. I haven't read the testimony.
Does not matter, his blood was inside the car, thus he was near enough for blood spatters to enter the vehicle. There are two conflicting version as to why, was he pulled, or did he reach in?


If we assume he was pulled in, for what possible reasons?
MAchocopism? Youignoringmeboyism? I find it even harder to imagine why he would reach in (past the driver) to take something (I would assume low down and difficult to reach). Especially if (as is claimed) it was a bust and he knew the bloke was a copper.

Cops making grabs at people who are not doing as they are told is not an unknown phenomenon. People trying to steal from conscious and active coppers is far rarer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
red black wrote:
If we assume he was pulled in, for what possible reasons?


Because Wilson felt like exerting some muscle? For the purpose of a grand jury, there's no need to ask about the whys of it - much as Wilson's defenders don't seem particularly interested in why Brown would have attacked a cop for no good reason.

The issue is simple. There are two conflicting narratives as to who initiated the conflict. Wilson says Brown did; Dorian Johnson (and a couple of other witnesses) say Wilson did. There is no objective evidence supporting either narrative. That alone merited a trial.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
Despite the headlines and horse shit, if you watch the video where Garner is saying he can't breathe you have to be a complete idiot to not understand that if a guy can say loudly say "I can't breathe" four or five times, he clearly can breathe.


Except, of course, a chokehold isn't like literally plugging someone's mouth; you can start the process of being strangled to death and still be able to make yourself heard by using what air remains in your lungs to make noise. It's fairly common for asthmatics to do if they panic during an attack (and hastens the strangulation process, ironically).

Eric Garner was being choked to death, and he knew it, and tried to communicate it, and the cop ignored him and continued to apply an illegal chokehold, and Garner died. Because of a confrontation cops initiated, because he was selling loosies on the boardwalk, and because he gave them some attitude. You are literally defending the right of the police to murder people for this.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
red black wrote:
Did Brown reach inside the car? Was that question put to the witnesses?


I think this misses the point. There would appear to have been sufficient evidence in the case to move forward with charges so that a trial could be held. Then you actually determine guilt or innoncence "beyond a reasonable doubt." Without the trial, it simply looks like the prosecutor presented a case to a grand jury, which reached a conclusion that is at least highly questionable in the public's mind.

It's worth pointing out that even when it goes to trial, the officers often aren't found guilty. The Rodney King case is probably the most visible example of this, but there are (many) others. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is one hell of a hurdle to get over and all it takes is a single juror to have issues with that hurdle for the case to result in a mistrial or not guilty verdict.

I'm all for not avoiding prosecution when possible. But cases like Brown and Garner undermine the credibility of the police and the justice system - it's simply too difficult to believe that the evidence wasn't sufficient to put it in front of a jury.

Did Brown reach for Wilson's gun? I don't know. What I do know is that I would have liked to see a jury reach a verdict rather than a grand jury that was presented with whatever facts the prosecutor chose to present.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.