Violent protest erupts in Ferguson, MO over deadly police shooting

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**curran12**

whembly wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

It would look a lot better than "Pro-cop DA fails to indict cop and is a little pissed that people still think this is a big deal."

Well, I'm glad we're concerned about appearances and not facts or justice.

Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.

First... hell no.

Secondly... no.

The Prosecuting office has a duty to believe that they have enough evidence, beyond reasonable doubt to even send the case to the court.

You don't "have a court case" just to "maintain an appearnce".

A thousand times this. This "maintain an appearance" thing is utter and complete crap. That is one of the wrongest things I've seen posted here on Dakka. And that's saying something.

**whembly**

CaulynDarr wrote:

I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.

Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.

For someone who hasn't read the whole GJ report... you've already made up your mind.

Did you miss the multiple witnesses corraborating Wilson's story? (who are African American as well).

**CptJake**

whembly wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.

Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.

For someone who hasn't read the whole GJ report... you've already made up your mind.

Did you miss the multiple witnesses corraborating Wilson's story? (who are African American as well).

And how does Wilson's being able or unable to drive himself have any bearing whatsoever on whether it was a justified shoot or not?

And the conflicting eye witnesses were heard by the grand jury, and guess what? They seemed to believe the witnesses who had testimony supported by the physical evidence they were shown. As it should be.

**chaos0xomega**

CaulynDarr wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

It would look a lot better than "Pro-cop DA fails to indict cop and is a little pissed that people still think this is a big deal."

Well, I'm glad we're concerned about appearances and not facts or justice.

Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
So what from the supplied evidence and testimony justified an indictment?

I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.

Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.

A grown ass man drove himself back to his office? OH THE HUMANITY!!! Clearly some great crime was committed in Ferguson, heaven forbid a grown ass man be able to drive a car, because that is at all relevant to anything important.

**cincydooley**

CaulynDarr wrote:

Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.

Congrats on that!

**xole**

cincydooley wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.

Congrats on that!

Hold on to that thing, we've still got a lot of day left to cover.

**CaulynDarr**

cincydooley wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.

Congrats on that!

Good to know we can be cynical and say that people would have rioted no matter what, but we can't be cynical about the justice system acting politically. I'm glad to know that saying having a fair trial instead of a forgone conclusion grand jury is the most absurd thing of the day.

**curran12**

Sorry, you can't twist your words. You pretty much said, straight up that they should have a trial against all the actual laws of holding a trial in order to "maintain appearances." That is the absurd part.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.

Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.

For someone who hasn't read the whole GJ report... you've already made up your mind.

Did you miss the multiple witnesses corraborating Wilson's story? (who are African American as well).

Remember though, the standard is effectively merely probable cause that it could have occurred. Its not the trial.
Also GJs anotoriously follow the will of the prosecutor.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CaulynDarr wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.

Congrats on that!

Good to know we can be cynical and say that people would have rioted no matter what, but we can't be cynical about the justice system acting politically. I'm glad to know that saying having a fair trial instead of a forgone conclusion grand jury is the most absurd thing of the day.

Of course the CJ acted politically. The DA didn't need a GJ at all. He just wanted cover, like hiring a consultant. Then its not on him either way.

**CaulynDarr**

curran12 wrote:
Sorry, you can't twist your words. You pretty much said, straight up that they should have a trial against all the actual laws of holding a trial in order to "maintain appearances." That is the absurd part.

Never said that. I said they should have appointed a special prosecutor, who would then file charges and have a trial. These are all legal things to do. It was within the law to have a trial. The grand jury is optional and often just a rubber stamp

**CptJake**

CaulynDarr wrote:

Never said that. I said they should have appointed a special prosecutor, who would then file charges and have a trial. These are all legal things to do. It was within the law to have a trial. The grand jury is optional and often just a rubber stamp

You only file charges if you feel you have enough evidence to support a conviction at trial, or if you feel you have enough to get a plea.

Seeing the report, I don't think a competent prosecutor would have thought he/she could win this at a jury trial.

In your scenario, you want a special prosecutor to act just as politically as you allege the grand jury did. You don't seem to hold actual facts/evidence of the case in much regard, you just want a trial because Trial!

**Frazzled**

CaulynDarr wrote:
curran12 wrote:
Sorry, you can't twist your words. You pretty much said, straight up that they should have a trial against all the actual laws of holding a trial in order to "maintain appearances." That is the absurd part.

Never said that. I said they should have appointed a special prosecutor, who would then file charges and have a trial. These are all legal things to do. It was within the law to have a trial. The grand jury is optional and often just a rubber stamp

Someone help me out. I thought this had occurred in a non Ferguson jurisdction. Was I wrong in that?

**CaulynDarr**

Frazzled wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
curran12 wrote:
Sorry, you can't twist your words. You pretty much said, straight up that they should have a trial against all the actual laws of holding a trial in order to "maintain appearances." That is the absurd part.

Never said that. I said they should have appointed a special prosecutor, who would then file charges and have a trial. These are all legal things to do. It was within the law to have a trial. The grand jury is optional and often just a rubber stamp

Someone help me out. I thought this had occurred in a non Ferguson jurisdction. Was I wrong in that?

It normally falls under the county, but the Missouri AG can assign a special prosecutor if there is a conflict of interest( many have argued that Mcculloch's father being a police officer could qualify). Or the local prosecutor can just ask for one. Back in August the Governor and Mcculloch where daring each other to do it, but no one pulled the trigger.

**ImAGeek**

cincydooley wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:
I think people need to understand why people are protesting. A young black man was shot 6 times and killed for allegedly robbing a shop. Eyewitnesses have said he had his hands up and was surrendering, and there's also evidence that he didn't rob the shop at all. The White man who shot him hasn't even been put on trial. Yet there was a guy who went into a cinema and shot and killed 12 people, who was arrested peacefully. Guess what, he was white.

A 12 year old black boy has been shot and killed for playing with a freaking BB gun. I'm pretty sure he was in an open carry state.

If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.

The riots started out as peaceful protests too, btw. Before police and SWAT came en force with their assault rifles and tear gas. Where was that when Mike Browns memorial was set on fire and pissed on.

I am disgusted.

You should probably educate yourself next time before posting. This is pretty much entirely wrong.

If you read two posts down, you'll notice that I said that myself...

I'd read a bunch of obviously slanted media, saw it was being talked about here, and posted whilst angry about something I didn't know as much as I thought I did about. I've acknowledged that and apologised for posting in haste. Really don't see what telling me something I've myself acknowledged achieves.

I was wrong. It happenes.

Perhaps fewer reactionary, baseless statements? That's the ultimate goal, yeah?

You can apologize all you want. That's great. Doesn't change the fact that you perpetuated all the mistruth to begin with. So, in effect, you did exactly what the media wanted you to. Congrats!

Well, yeah. But I hardly perpetuated anything, I posted rashly on one board and was immediately shot down, and have now looked properly at the facts. I haven't been on every discussion about it spreading misinformation, I was misinformed and have learnt the truth. I've apologised for it, what more d'you want?

Also, the media is all I have to go on, so that's the only perspective I had really before posting here.

**Jimsolo**

ImAGeek wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:
I think people need to understand why people are protesting. A young black man was shot 6 times and killed for allegedly robbing a shop. Eyewitnesses have said he had his hands up and was surrendering, and there's also evidence that he didn't rob the shop at all. The White man who shot him hasn't even been put on trial. Yet there was a guy who went into a cinema and shot and killed 12 people, who was arrested peacefully. Guess what, he was white.

A 12 year old black boy has been shot and killed for playing with a freaking BB gun. I'm pretty sure he was in an open carry state.

If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.

The riots started out as peaceful protests too, btw. Before police and SWAT came en force with their assault rifles and tear gas. Where was that when Mike Browns memorial was set on fire and pissed on.

I am disgusted.

You should probably educate yourself next time before posting. This is pretty much entirely wrong.

If you read two posts down, you'll notice that I said that myself...

I'd read a bunch of obviously slanted media, saw it was being talked about here, and posted whilst angry about something I didn't know as much as I thought I did about. I've acknowledged that and apologised for posting in haste. Really don't see what telling me something I've myself acknowledged achieves.

I was wrong. It happenes.

Perhaps fewer reactionary, baseless statements? That's the ultimate goal, yeah?

You can apologize all you want. That's great. Doesn't change the fact that you perpetuated all the mistruth to begin with. So, in effect, you did exactly what the media wanted you to. Congrats!

Well, yeah. But I hardly perpetuated anything, I posted rashly on one board and was immediately shot down, and have now looked properly at the facts. I haven't been on every discussion about it spreading misinformation, I was misinformed and have learnt the truth. I've apologised for it, what more d'you want?

Also, the media is all I have to go on, so that's the only perspective I had really before posting here.

Dude, you received correct information, and then calmly and politely corrected yourself. Pretty much the only thing more you could have done was to go back and edit your original post with a retraction, but even that isn't enough for some people. The best solution to make your life more peaceful? Put cincydooley on ignore, then forget all about him. Every legitimate person accepted your apology and moved on. Don't get hung up on one troll.

**Ensis Ferrae**

CaulynDarr wrote:

I read a good potion of the Darren Wilson testimony. I can't tell if the evidence matches the story, or the story was made to match the evidence. Like how he was allowed to drive himself alone back to the station after the shooting. That's when he discovered his radio was switched to the wrong channel. If I was a prosecutor and was wanting to get an indictment, I think I could have made a big issue out of that.

A special prosecutor should have been assigned. The deck is so stacked in the favor of a police officer in a grand jury that the public was never going to get a satisfactory resolution. A trial may have just found Wilson innocent, but I think it would have had much more legitimacy to the community than the grand jury.

My political science professor was a practicing DA in California for nearly 30 years... And she talked briefly about this today in class. What she was saying is that, basically on a procedural level, she has so many issues with the investigation and how things were handled. For instance, why was the Investigating Officer sent to a scene with only 3 officers? Did this lead to IO not taking written testimony from Off. Wilson at the scene? Did this lead to the body lying there for over 4 hours? In the investigation, why is there so much time between the incident, and Off. Wilson's official statement? In that interim, did Off. Wilson speak to a lawyer?

This is why she said that things probably would have gotten real ugly in an open trial, because a GOOD defense lawyer would be questioning and heavily scrutinizing the whole thing, every piece of evidence, and all the way down to procedural issues.

**ImAGeek**

Jimsolo wrote:

Dude, you received correct information, and then calmly an politely corrected yourself. Pretty much the only thing more you could have done was to go back and edit your original post with a retraction, but even that isn't enough for some people. The best solution to make your life more peaceful? Put cincydooley on ignore, then forget all about him. Every legitimate person accepted your apology and moved on. Don't get hung up on one troll.

Sorry, I just felt like an idiot enough as it is... I will edit the original post though. Thanks.

**Frazzled**

It normally falls under the county, but the Missouri AG can assign a special prosecutor if there is a conflict of interest( many have argued that Mcculloch's father being a police officer could qualify). Or the local prosecutor can just ask for one. Back in August the Governor and Mcculloch where daring each other to do it, but no one pulled the trigger.

Ok, now I get it. I had thought that had occurred.

**cincydooley**

Jimsolo wrote:

Dude, you received correct information, and then calmly and politely corrected yourself. Pretty much the only thing more you could have done was to go back and edit your original post with a retraction, but even that isn't enough for some people. The best solution to make your life more peaceful? Put cincydooley on ignore, then forget all about him. Every legitimate person accepted your apology and moved on. Don't get hung up on one troll.

And it's a lovely learning point for the future. Heaven forbid we encourage people to make informed arguments, right?

I do appreciate you calling me "not a legitimate person" however; that's a first for me. Yay for firsts!

**Sigvatr**

With all due respect, but if someone openly admits to a mistake, especially on the internet, then by all means, appreciate it instead of mocking the user in question. It's a very rare sight and should be complimented, not used as a reason to mock.

**Jihadin**

cincydooley wrote:
Jimsolo wrote:

Dude, you received correct information, and then calmly and politely corrected yourself. Pretty much the only thing more you could have done was to go back and edit your original post with a retraction, but even that isn't enough for some people. The best solution to make your life more peaceful? Put cincydooley on ignore, then forget all about him. Every legitimate person accepted your apology and moved on. Don't get hung up on one troll.

And it's a lovely learning point for the future. Heaven forbid we encourage people to make informed arguments, right?

I do appreciate you calling me "not a legitimate person" however; that's a first for me. Yay for firsts!

You know nothing Jon Snow

**DarkLink**

In unrelated news, millions of internet experts completed their law degrees last night.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Sigvatr wrote:
With all due respect, but if someone openly admits to a mistake, especially on the internet, then by all means, appreciate it instead of mocking the user in question. It's a very rare sight and should be complimented, not used as a reason to mock.

There have been times where I'll see a post, click the quote button, and make my comment without reading further into the thread to see if that "issue" had been resolved, or even addressed. Sometimes, I'll click the button, and not realize that there's been a page of comments since that post, or even 2 and 3 pages, depending on the last time I visited.

**cincydooley**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
With all due respect, but if someone openly admits to a mistake, especially on the internet, then by all means, appreciate it instead of mocking the user in question. It's a very rare sight and should be complimented, not used as a reason to mock.

There have been times where I'll see a post, click the quote button, and make my comment without reading further into the thread to see if that "issue" had been resolved, or even addressed. Sometimes, I'll click the button, and not realize that there's been a page of comments since that post, or even 2 and 3 pages, depending on the last time I visited.

Its cool. Don't let logic get in the way of a good De-legitimizing of a person!

I'm not going to be broken up about it.

**whembly**

DarkLink wrote:
In unrelated news, millions of internet experts completed their law degrees last night.

Indeed...

I'm trying to read the GJ report... I'm only on page 338 of the 4799 page report!

**cincydooley**

whembly wrote:
DarkLink wrote:
In unrelated news, millions of internet experts completed their law degrees last night.

Indeed...

I'm trying to read the GJ report... I'm only on page 338 of the 4799 page report!

I read through the first 50 or so, then started skimming until I found Wilson's testimony (starts around 890, IIRC), and haven't read anymore since then.

Its thorough as all hell, that's for sure.

**Jihadin**

I feel bad for the National Guardsmen getting called up to deal with this stupidity

**CptJake**

Jihadin wrote:
I feel bad for the National Guardsmen getting called up to deal with this stupidity

Wouldn't it be better if they sent in a couple ODAs to organize and train the locals to defend their town and businesses?

You could even use non-Federalized guys from 19th or 20th SFG. Kind of a mixed UW/FID certification exercise. Who needs Pineland?

**Jihadin**

CptJake wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
I feel bad for the National Guardsmen getting called up to deal with this stupidity

Wouldn't it be better if they sent in a couple ODAs to organize and train the locals to defend their town and businesses?

You could even use non-Federalized guys from 19th or 20th SFG. Kind of a mixed UW/FID certification exercise. Who needs Pineland?

Screw it. Let's roll with Counter Insurgency

**cincydooley**

Thats an interesting point, actually.

At what point do we stop calling it rioting and start calling it terrorism?